Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [24 October],

That this House doth agree with Lords in their Amendment, to leave out Clause 6.

Debate further adjourned till Tuesday 30 October.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 8 November.

Mr. Speaker: As the four private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, I propose to deal with them as a single group.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 November.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],

That the Bill he now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 8 November.

SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing output in 1990.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I shall be publishing a forecast of manufacturing output in 1990 with the autumn statement.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Chancellor confirm that, according to his officials, the manufacturing side of the British economy is now in recession? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give up his previous habit of trying to alter the definitions of expressions such as "recession", renaming it "technical recession", which we understand is the current ministerial sales line, just as he has done with "inflation", renaming that "headline inflation", with "convergence of inflation" in the Madrid conditions becoming "divergence of disinflation"? Does he accept that what industry now wants from the Government is some leadership out of recession so that just entering the exchange rate mechanism is not seen as the answer, because on its own that can be no more than putting on a gas mask full of carbon monoxide?

Mr. Major: I have rarely heard such a short point put at such length. I can certainly confirm that output is slowing and has been slowing over the past two or three months, as I have repeatedly said. Whether it is within the normal definition of "recession"—which is, of course, why my officials and subsequently I use that term—is a matter that we shall soon see. It is not entirely clear yet. It is conceivable that it is, but we must wait and see.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend remind the macho champions of manufacturing interests on the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that in the past decade, manufacturing output in Britain rose faster than in any other EEC country, according to OECD figures, and that during the period of the previous Labour Government, manufacturing output fell?

Mr. Major: I can certainly confirm those OECD figures. I can also confirm that manufacturing investment has grown on an annual basis over the past decade, whereas that also fell during the period of the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Beith: Has the Chancellor noted the bleak report produced by the British chambers of commerce earlier this week? Recognising that the task of manufacturing industry will not be any easier in the early days of the ERM, will the right hon. Gentleman help it by seeing that we get more investment in skills and skill training and in transport for access to markets so that it can have some hope of increasing competitiveness?

Mr. Major: I read that survey with some interest. It has, of course, been only a recent survey and has not yet passed through a complete economic cycle. There are signs that some of the observations in that survey were a little overdone, but we must wait and see what happens in the


next few months. It is certainly consistent with the slowing down in the economy that we are seeing. That is a necessary part of the cycle. It has been predicted, it is expected and it is here, and the sooner we have it, the sooner we shall be through it and back to low inflation and growth again.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that wage restraint is needed from the very top of industry, but that it is failing to give the right lead? If industry is to become profitable, it is no good having 6 per cent. wage increases in the German car industry while Rover and other workers are getting 13 per cent. That is the way to ruin and to losing jobs, not the way to prosperity.

Mr. Major: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will recall that it was about a year ago, possibly in answer to one of his questions, that I first made the observation about pay affecting people at the top of industry as well as on the shop floor. That was true when we had that exchange a year ago, and it remains true today.

Mortgage Repayments

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present number of people six to 12 months in arrears on their mortgage repayments.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): Figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that at end June 1990 there were 76,280 mortgage loans six to 12 months in arrears.

Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that in the past six months more than 400,000 people were two to three months in arrears and well over 14,000 had their homes repossessed? Does he think that his 1 per cent. cut in interest rates will make much of a dent in those figures?

Mr. Maples: I am sure that any cut in interest rates will help people who, for that reason, are in trouble with their mortgages. While all of us feel a great deal of sympathy for people in difficulty with their mortgage payments, the problem should be kept in perspective. The level of repossessions in the year to 30 June was less than one third of 1 per cent. of all mortgages, and we should keep the problem in perspective.

Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great tributes to the Government's economic performance has been that mortgages have been readily available to people at prices that they can afford, which has encouraged the responsibility of home ownership? Will he do what he can to use his good offices to encourage the building societies to help fund the excellent debt advice services currently run by the Advice Services Alliance?

Mr. Maples: I shall take up my hon. Friend's second point first. As he probably knows, the Government already give a grant of £11 million to citizens advice bureaux. On his first point, it is worth recalling, when considering the figures, that during the past 11 years there have been 3·5 million additional home owners—more than ever before, and 3 million of whom have mortgages—and 900,000 additional mortgages have been taken out in the past two and a half years.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware of the number of people who, because they could not find rented

accommodation, decided to buy a house, and were actively encouraged to do so by the Government and building societies, but who now find themselves—certainly in the west midlands and my district—in tremendous difficulties? A number of my constituents face the repossession of their homes, with the local authorities not always being able to help. Is the Minister further aware that those and millions of other people who are just able to cope with paying their mortgages do not have the benefit of the tax havens mentioned inThe Sunday Times last Sunday? When will that loophole be closed? Why is it that time and again the rich are rewarded with the advantages of loopholes that other people cannot use?

Mr. Maples: If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about the unavailability of rented accommodation, perhaps he should not have had such a doctrinaire opposition to the various rent Acts and supported us when we tried to free that sector of the housing market. As for people having difficulties with their mortgages, as I said, that is certainly true and all hon. Members have a great deal of sympathy with such people. However, most arrears are sorted out and few short-term arrears turn into long-term arrears. The figures for repossession show that the total number of repossessions in the past 12 months has been 21,780, and in 1987 it was more, at 22,930. During the intervening period there have been nearly 1 million more mortgages. Perhaps the figures do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend consider what the position would have been if interest rates had not gone up last year, when house prices were going up at a rate of 20 or 30 per cent., particularly in the south-east and south-west, and the first-time buyer was being completely taken out of the market? Has he noticed that during the past year, house prices, particularly for the first-time buyer, have gone down by 10 per cent. in those districts?

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There was no way that house prices could continue to rise at the 20 per cent. a year at which they were rising, which was damaging for potential home owners. Some adjustment was long overdue.

Child Poverty

Mr. Leadbitter: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government's policies on child poverty.

Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government's policies on child poverty.

Mr. Major: I have not myself recently met representatives of the CPAG, although I am aware of their representations to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Chancellor consider that between 1979 and 1987, 1·5 million more children were living in families on half the average income; and that from 1987 child benefit was frozen, so its value in real terms this year had fallen by £1·35? Has he got his priorities right,


taking into account the fact that people earning £70,000 a year have had tax cuts 200 times greater than families living on £5,000 a year?

Mr. Major: There are two points in the hon. Gentleman's remarks to which I want to refer. It is relevant that the total amount of money now available for child benefit has risen from something under £2 billion 10 years ago to something over £4½ billion this year—a substantial amount.
Of course, the missing element in the hon. Gentleman's equation about average income is important: the extent to which average incomes generally have risen dramatically and to which the impact of direct taxation has fallen correspondingly. On the greater level—this is what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question about family benefits in total—expenditure has risen from well under £2 billion when we took office to well over £5 billion today.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is no longer acceptable to take tax from people who earn less than a third of the national average wage to give child benefit to the richest people in the country? How much money would be saved if only those earning under £20,000 a year received child benefit?

Mr. Major: I cannot immediately give my hon. Friend an answer. It would certainly be a substantial amount, but child benefit is recognised as a universal benefit paid to the mother, and we have no intention of changing that arrangement.

Mr. Boateng: Will the Chancellor explain how it is that a Government who purport to put the family at the heart of their policies have presided over an increase by more than a half of families living on or below the poverty line, who now number 6·2 million? How does that square with the party of the family? How does he explain a situation in which targeting the first-born is seen as some sort of a substitute for coherent family policy? There may be an historical precedent for that, but it did not do Pharaoh any good and it will not do the Prime Minister any either.

Mr. Major: We return to the definitional point with which we commenced Question Time. What the hon. Gentleman refers to as the poverty line is the level at which social security benefits start. Because we have extended them much more dramatically than the previous Government, more people automatically fall within the statistics.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Conservatives payments to the family have risen by more than a quarter while under the previous Labour Government they fell by 8 per cent?

Mr. Major: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, except that the figures are, I think, a little more favourable to the present Government than she said.

Taxation

Mr. Caborn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings a married couple with one earner on average earnings, with two children, paid in tax, treating child benefit as negative income tax, in 1978–79 and in 1989–90.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): A one-earner couple, with two children, on average male earnings saw the proportion of gross earnings paid in income tax fall from 14·4 per cent. in 1978–79 to 12·3 per cent. in 1989–90.

Mr. Caborn: I thank the Minister for that answer, but it would be good if he answered the question on the Order Paper. Does he agree that the information given by the Library shows clearly that in 1979 the tax referred to in the question that the Minister has not answered was 35·2 per cent. and is now 36·6 per cent. and that that represents for the average family an increase in taxation of £300 a year? Does not that underline what many are saying—that the Government are the Government of high taxation?

Mr. Maude: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question. He may have asked the wrong question but I gave the right answer. The level of taxation for average households has fallen considerably. A further fact, of which he may not be aware but which is worth sharing with him, is that real net income for the average household has risen by 34 per cent.

Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite massive reductions in income tax rates, we have seen over the past decade a massive increase in income tax yields? The top 10 per cent. of taxpayers now contribute nearly 30 per cent. of the yield as opposed to 24 per cent. when we came to power. That demonstrates that tax reductions help the country to find the money to spend on social services.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes the point well. Very high tax rates provide no benefit at all for the country. They do not result in extra tax yields but drive successful people who are on high incomes overseas to be taxed elsewhere. That is of no benefit to anyone. The only other thing that they do is to appease socialist spite and envy.

Mr. John Smith: The Minister must know that one person's tax dodge is another's tax burden. Is not it time that tax dodges by a wealthy minority, such as those publicised inThe Sunday Times last Sunday, were brought to an end? That question was put to the Economic Secretary and, significantly, was not answered. Why do the Government permit the easy avoidance of tax by a wealthy few using offshore trusts while ordinary families have to pay every single penny that is imposed on them?

Mr. Maude: The short point is that, above all, what creates tax avoidance and made the tax avoidance industry in the 1970s one of the most successful industries in the country is a high level of taxation and complicated tax laws. Of course, there may be a problem here and we are looking closely at it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the right way to deal with such complicated international matters is to leap to instant conclusions, I am afraid that we part company with him.

Mr. Conway: Is it the case that four out of five families with children of school age are direct tax payers? If that is so, will my hon. Friend tell the House how their family lot could possibly be improved by the high taxation policies of the Labour party?

Mr. Maude: When a party proposes reckless increases in spending, as the Labour party has, the only ways in which that can he paid for is either by increasing taxation,


which would hit precisely the families to which my hon. Friend refers, or by borrowing. We all know the disastrous effects that that had in the 1970s.

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of non-oil gross domestic product he forecasts taxes and national insurance contributions will represent in 1990–91.

Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend will publish a forecast of tax receipts in the autumn statement.

Mr. Michie: In view of the fact that last year, in 1989–90, the proportion of non-oil GDP taken in taxes and national insurance contributions was 36·75 per cent., which compares with 34 per cent. in 1978–79, whatever the Government say by huffing and puffing at the polls, will the Minister now admit that the Conservative party is the party of high taxation?

Mr. Maude: That is an odd contention in view of the much lower levels of taxation that now prevail. The Government fund their spending honestly by taxation and not by borrowing. When the previous Labour Government left office they had a PSBR of no less than 5 per cent. of gross domestic product. We have chosen to reverse that and to raise honestly the money that the Government spend, by taxation. If Labour's tax regime had remained in force in the way that it was in 1979, the tax burden would now have increased by £12 billion a year.

Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's promises on benefits and public spending mean that the proportion of taxation taken by any Labour Government would be vastly increased, to the detriment of ordinary taxpayers as well as the rich?

Mr. Maude: That would be the inevitable consequence. Such reckless promises—of which the Labour Front Bench cannot even keep count—would have to be funded either by higher levels of taxation on everybody or by borrowing, which would be disastrous.

Dr. Marek: The Financial Secretary is wrong if he believes that Labour is the party of low taxation—[Laughter.] Will he confirm that the percentage of GDP taken in taxation has been much higher during this Conservative Government's years in office compared with the halcyon days when Labour was in office—[Laughter.] Oh yes, the figures are there to prove that, and the Financial Secretary does the House no good by trying to deny them. When will he tighten up the offshore tax concessions that have proliferated during the past 10 years? When will he bring down taxation for the British people to what it was in the 1970s?

Mr. Maude: It is good fun to be lectured by a member of the Labour Front Bench for being a party of high taxation, compared with the Labour party's wonderful history of low taxation—although under Labour taxation levels rose to 83 per cent. and 98 per cent. in the pound. If that is low taxation, thank heavens Labour never went in for high taxation.

Government Expenditure

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the share of gross domestic product to be taken by central Government expenditure.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The forecast for the unadjusted ratio of general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, to gross domestic product published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" is 39¾ per cent. The central Government component of that was 29¼ per cent. of gross domestic product.

Mr. Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a substantial proportion of the gross domestic product taken by central Government is spent by local authorities, and that that spending has recently risen dramatically? Will he further confirm that it is an outrageous and unacceptable burden on ordinary people, which must not be allowed to continue?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Local authorities in England this year increased their current spending by 13¼ per cent. That is quite unjustified. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that the Government intend to make vigorous use of their community charge capping powers if that continues.
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have introduced a new local authority capital finance regime, which we believe will help to deal with the problem of overspending on capital. My hon. Friend was right to say that it is a serious problem.

Mr. Douglas: To meet that expenditure, what percentage of revenue does the Minister expect to come from oil revenues? As there has been a dramatic rise in the price per barrel—it is touching $40—can we expect an increase in revenue that might, perhaps, touch £5 billion?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman takes a special interest in energy matters, so he will be aware that the revenue from North sea oil is a small proportion of total tax revenue. I speak from memory, but I think that it is about 2 or 3 per cent. The level of oil revenue would be affected if there were to be a sharp rise in the oil price, but it would not have a significant effect on total tax revenue.

Inflation

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.

Mr. Major: I expect there to be a substantial reduction over the coming year.

Mr. MacKay: As there is a clear need for pay restraint, does my right hon. Friend agree that those chairmen and chief executives of major companies who received highly publicised and spectacular pay rises last year—which, by and large, were supported because they were linked to increased profits—must equally accept reductions in their salaries this year, which should be equally spectacular if their profits are suitably reduced?

Mr. Major: As I said earlier, if there is a need for wage restraint throughout industry to ensure greater competitiveness, it must apply at the top as well as at the bottom. I am happy to reiterate that.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does the Chancellor realise that we are now two years into the counter-inflationary strategy of relying on high interest rates? Does he realise that, by increasing the retail prices index—which is what high interest rates have done, through mortgage interest rates, quite apart from the other factors—the Government are now relying on exhortation, and that exhortation will not be enough as the RPI rises?

Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman makes a better case against the way in which we measure prices than against the policy that will bring inflation down.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most sensitive guides to the direction that inflation is taking is not the latest RPI figure but the movement of monetary aggregates? Will he confirm that there has been a steady decline in monetary aggregates over the past six months—particularly in MO but also in M4? Does he agree that that is a good sign that he has got inflation under control and that the Government's policies are working at last?

Mr. Major: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's view. The reduction in MO has occurred over the past six months or so and the reduction in broad money has continued throughout this year in each and every month since January.

Mr. Flannery: Like his predecessor, the Chancellor is constantly explaining to us that he is trying to bring down the rate of inflation. Why does he talk as though it was an act of God that caused inflation? Why does not he admit that the Government did it? Why is it that, with the bonus of North sea oil, which no other country in Europe has enjoyed, our inflation rate is higher than those of our European counterparts—in some cases twice as high?

Mr. Major: At no stage have I placed the blame where the hon. Gentleman suggests I have. The problem that created inflation was excessive demand, as I have repeatedly stated. That is accepted by commentators and it is broadly accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As a result of monetary policy, demand is falling away, and inflation will come down as well.

Investment

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss levels of investment.

Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend meets the Governor regularly and discusses a range of issues.

Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm not only that investment in this country has risen by 40 per cent. in the past three years but that in the past 10, investment in the United Kingdom has risen faster than in any other industrialised country except for Japan? Will he also confirm that, on current trends, investment in the United Kingdom economy in 1990 will be no less than 40 per cent. greater. in real terms, than it was in the so-called halcyon days of the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is right. Business investment in the past three years has risen by 44 per cent., and in the 1980s, it rose faster than in any other G7 country except Japan.

Mr. Cousins: When the Minister meets the Governor of the Bank of England, will he be reinforcing the view of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there is a deal-making culture in the City that hurts industry and investment?

Mr. Maples: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my hon. Friend meets the Governor of the Bank of England, will he discuss with him the fact that the greater proportion of foreign investment coming into the EEC comes to Britain, as opposed to the continental countries?

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is right. Under this Government and over the past 10 years, Britain has proved an extremely attractive place for foreign investment.

Unemployment

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect of high interest rates on the level of unemployment.

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect of low output growth in 1990 on the level of unemployment.

Mr. Norman Lamont: A period of high interest rates and slow output growth is necessary to defeat inflation. The precise effect of this on unemployment depends crucially on whether wages growth slows as well.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that the principal reason for the present large number of bankruptcies is high interest rates? What words of comfort can he give to firms teetering on the brink of collapse?

Mr. Lamont: As my right hon. Friend has repeatedly made clear, a slowdown is necessary so that we can get on top of inflation, and continuing high inflation would do immense damage to all companies, and it is essential for their prospects that we get inflation down.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harry Cohen. Is he here? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The hon. Gentleman may not have heard the whole answer, but he may ask his supplementary question.

Mr. Cohen: Does the Minister believe that the rise in unemployment—by 36,000, in the south-east alone—is a sign of a successful economic policy? Will not unemployment increase enormously in the next two years as a result of the Government's policy of slowing down growth and output because they had overheated the economy in the first place?[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not too bad.

Mr. Lamont: I was going to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his quick thinking, but he has merely repeated what he has said many times before. It is noticeable that this is the first time for many months that Opposition Members have mentioned unemployment. They never mentioned it when we had 36 months of a


continuing fall in unemployment. They never acknowledge that we still have unemployment which is below the European Community average, that we have a good rate of growth in jobs and that our record compares well with those of other countries and with that of the Labour party.

Mr. Gale: Is not it as true now as it was under the previous Labour Administration that one man's pay increase is another man's price increase, that unearned pay increases are a major contributing factor to inflation, and that that is the real cause of unemployment?

Mr. Lamont: It is certainly true that excessive wage claims have a considerable bearing on unemployment. They can cause unemployment, and the unions must judge that. I think that they have to stand by the results of their decisions. They are not my words, but those of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our successful trade figures for several months now give the lie to the fact that we have poor upward growth and demonstrate that successful British companies are doing well? Is not that reinforced by the fact that Norton is taking over a West German company, and does not it show that British industry should not be written off, as it is by the Opposition?

Mr. Lamont: In recent months exports have been growing faster than imports, and last month's trade figures were the best for three years. The slowdown in the economy is having a beneficial effect on the current pound, as well as being designed to bring about a reduction in the rate of inflation.

Inflation

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many countries in the European Economic Community currently have a higher inflation rate than the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maples: Two, Sir.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that the so-called Madrid conditions are a sham, especially in view of the Government's failure to get the rate of inflation down before entry into the exchange rate mechanism, and that the Madrid conditions were all abandoned in time for the Tory party conference? Is not it true that Britain has one of the highest rates of inflation in Europe because the Government are totally inept at running the economy? Without sound policies on investment and training, entry into the ERM alone will not undo the damage caused by the Government.

Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made it perfectly clear that the Madrid conditions have been fulfilled—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Maples: I am going to Madrid the weekend after next, but I am happy to say that unless the Madrid conditions have been framed and put in the Prado I shall not be paying them any attention on that visit.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that high interest rates are highly inflationary, that they are particularly damaging to investment and that they are very damaging to manufacturing industry, which in my view is the sole non-inflationary creation of a sound economy? What does my hon. Friend intend to do to help manufacturing industry, which is so important?

Mr. Maples: We have a battle on our hands against inflation. Raising interest rates is an essential ingredient of that battle. The way that this country calculates the retail prices index considerably distorts the figure. The underlying rate of inflation in the United Kingdom is 8·3 per cent. which has to be compared with the European average of 5·4 per cent. If we look at the average over the past seven years, we find that inflation in the EEC was 5·1 per cent. and that in the United Kingdom it was 5·9 per cent. The difference, therefore, is not all that great.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister recall that recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer told Brian Walden that he wished the Government to be judged on their record? Since the Government's record shows that they invented the tax and price index and then abandoned it, returned to the retail prices index and abandoned that, too, and adopted the underlying rate of inflation and then redefined it, is there any significance in the Government ceasing to refer to the underlying rate of inflation, or is there no significance in anything that they say?

Mr. Maples: Whatever problems we may have with inflation, there is nothing that we can learn from the Labour party—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not like this bit. When they were in office the average rate of inflation was 15·4 per cent. and the lowest was 7·9 per cent. The average rate of inflation under this Government has been 7·9 per cent. Our average, therefore, is the same as their lowest. Over the past six years, the underlying rate of inflation in Britain was 4·9 per cent. The lowest rate of inflation under Labour was 7·9 per cent., so there is nothing that we can learn from the Opposition.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What would be the effect on inflation of the 182 promises made by the Labour party in "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change"?

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The answer is that inflation would increase dramatically. During the past few years the Opposition have constantly told us to cut interest rates when that was inappropriate and to raise public expenditure. In the not-so-recent past they urged us to run a substantial public sector borrowing requirement. Had we taken any of those measures, inflation would be far worse than it is today.

Interest Rates

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives from the Building Societies Association to discuss the current level of interest rates.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary met the Building Societies Association yesterday to discuss a number of issues.

Mr. Grant: Will the Minister confirm that he will have to reduce the mortgage interest rate by another 1 per cent. if the large number of people whose mortgages are


assessed annually are to have any serious relief? Will he also confirm that unless there is expenditure on research, development and the infrastructure, any benefits that might be created by a reduction in interest rates will he lost? Does the Minister acknowledge that it is the result of his Government's ineptitude that home owners have to bear these massive mortgage increases?

Mr. Maude: On the first point, it is for the lenders to decide when and how to reduce mortgage interest rates for borrowers. As for any further reductions in interest rates—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister please carry on?

Mr. Maude: I am not used to this degree of acclamation, but I think that I could get used to it. As for future cuts in interest rates, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, there will be no further cuts until it is safe to do so.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is noticeable that most of today's questions, such as this one, from the Opposition relate either to inflation or to interest rates but never to both? Will my hon. Friend confirm that whether one is inside or outside the exchange rate mechanism there is no soft option for curbing inflation and that it is dishonest of the Opposition to try to pretend that there is?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If we want to cure inflation, there is no alternative to keeping interest rates as high as are needed, getting demand down and keeping a downward pressure on demand. In that way we will secure the reduction in inflation that is essential if we are to return to the periods of sustained growth that we saw during the 1980s. We are confident that the Government's tough policy of maintaining interest rates uncomfortably high is working and will show its reward next year in a substantial fall in inflation.

Investment

Mr. Morley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest OECD forecasts for investment growth in the United Kingdom and Germany in 1990.

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest OECD forecasts for investment growth in the United Kingdom and Germany in 1990.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Over the past five years, total United Kingdom investment has increased by 40 per cent. double the rate seen in Germany. The OECD's latest forecast for fixed investment in 1990 was for a fall of 0·5 per cent. in the United Kingdom and a rise of 6·8 per cent. in Germany.

Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace that we are bottom of the league in terms of manufacturing investment and that we are seeing a fall of 1 per cent. while other European countries, such as socialist France, are seeing an increase of 6·5 per cent. in manufacturing investment? What does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to my reply, which showed that our investment

record compares well with those of other countries in Europe. Britain has enjoyed an investment boom. Our investment record compares extremely well with that of Germany. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman raised in his question. but he failed to take in the answer.

Ms. Armstrong: The Minister knows that our investment in manufacturing fell by 6 per cent. between the first and second quarters. Is he going to ensure that manufacturing investment and investment on the supply side are a central part of the strategy of ensuring that our economy and inflation improve over the next few years? Areas such as mine need more manufacturing investment. What is he going to do to support them?

Mr. Lamont: Any slowdown in investment that is likely to happen as a result of the general slowdown in the economy happens from a high base. As I have explained to the House, we have enjoyed strong growth in investment—far stronger than many of our European competitors.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Brown: While welcoming the release of a number of hostages from Iraq earlier this week, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear that the Government's and the world's determination to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait remains undiminished?

The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to my hon. Friend. Of course, we are glad to see more hostages home. We are glad for them and their families. Their return brings to 900 the total number of British nationals who have come back from Iraq and Kuwait so far. We are particularly concerned about those who are left—some 1,400—who have been taken totally contrary to international law. They and their families are suffering and for that we should totally and utterly condemn Saddam Hussein. We stand unequivocally by the United Nations decision that the whole of the territory should be restored to Kuwait, Saddam Hussein must withdraw, the legitimate Government must be restored, the hostages should be released and compensation should be paid to the people of Kuwait for the terrible damage done to their territory.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister join me in offering unreserved praise for the humanitarian efforts of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), especially when there are common objectives on both sides of the House and the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken his successful efforts without giving any comfort to Saddam Hussein but giving unending comfort to sick people and their loved ones?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had already heard me do that. We welcome the return of the hostages whose release was secured by my


right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath): their release brings the total number of those who have returned from Baghdad and Kuwait to some 900. We very much regret that more than 1,400 people are still there, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, too.

Mr. Marlow: Popular attitudes and aspirations change. Wise political leaders like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister respond to those changes. In the 1970s, she encapsulated them; in the 1980s, she gave effect to them. What is her assessment, her perception, of the aspirations and attitudes of the British people for the 1990s? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may take a little time, but let us hear the Prime Minister's reply.

The Prime Minister: To continue to rise to the responsibilities of defending freedom staunchly, as we have always done in the past; to carry on with the pound sterling, and maintain the current Parliament's powers with regard to the economy and monetary policy; and to continue with policies that have resulted in the creation of more jobs, more wealth and a higher standard than ever before—policies that enabled us yesterday to announce the distribution of a further £5 billion to families with young children and old people.

Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: What action does the Prime Minister propose to halt the destruction of our countryside—especially in areas of outstanding beauty such as the Vale of Glamorgan, where developers propose to build no fewer than six golf courses, four large hotels, three new town settlements and a racing track? This madness must stop.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is a matter for the local planning authorities. As he is also aware, we must try to find a balance between the beauties of the countryside and the importance of providing jobs for the people.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right to give every encouragement to the strengthening of the rural economy, so that we can maintain the social stability and the fabric of the countryside as we all know it? In that context, does she also agree that farmers—as the managers of the countryside—have a specific responsibility, and that they will be unable to undertake that responsibility if real reductions in their income result? I am thinking particularly of hill farmers, and those in the beef and sheep sectors.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the preservation of both the rural countryside and the rural economy is vital. Much of the landscape that we seek to conserve, however, was created by farmers in the first place. There is nothing contradictory about wanting both to conserve the environment and to look after farmers.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is particularly important to look after the fortunes of hill farmers, and we have tried to do that. We pay hill livestock compensatory allowances of more than £125 million a year, and our total

support for the sheep and beef sectors is running at about £750 million to £800 million this year, compared with about £450 million last year. We are trying to make up for the very difficult time that many farmers have had this year.

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the £5 per week increase in income support payments to care home residents announced yesterday will do nothing to stem the tide of closures and evictions that are affecting vast numbers of elderly and handicapped people? Is the right hon. Lady further aware that the safety net once provided by local council homes is no longer available to many of those people because they, too, have been closed as a consequence of Government policy? Has not the Government's exercise in free market community care been a disaster for vast numbers of elderly and disabled people, who are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in society?

The Prime Minister: Yesterday's announcement represents a £5 billion increase in all, which is a fantastic amount—made possible by the Government's successful economic policies. As to residential care, the Government are spending, through the taxpayer, £100 for every £1 spent under Labour.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Hicks: In acknowledging, rightly, that only three out of 10 absent fathers pay maintenance, does my right hon. Friend think it disgraceful that seven out of 10 absent parents, usually fathers, make no contribution to their children's welfare, and in so doing impose an intolerable financial burden on the state and cause untold misery for their neglected families? Although I welcome the forthcoming White Paper designed to overcome that problem, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the pressure groups that ask for legislation do not cause those proposals to be watered down?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Fathers may sometimes walk out on their families, but they must not be allowed to walk out on their financial responsibilities. If they do, conscientious families have to meet not only the cost of looking after their own children but of caring for the children of those who have walked out on their responsibilities. We shall not water down the White Paper. The people in question must make some proper payment towards the cost of caring for the children whom they left behind.

Dr. Thomas: Does the Prime Minister intend to meet today the farmers from all over the United Kingdom who have come to London to lobby? That demonstration began in Llanrwst in my constituency. The right hon. Lady has already answered a question on agricultural policy, but does she understand that as long as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Government policy


support a 30 per cent. reduction in farm support in the GATT talks, that will undermine any Government proposals for saving agriculture in the hills?

The Prime Minister: I have already indicated some of the help given to hill farmers. We acknowledge that it is vital that they should stay farming in the hills. In addition to the support that I earlier described, we recently announced a higher rate of suckler cow premium for hill producers. Next year, we shall pay a special supplement to hill sheep farmers. The 30 per cent. reduction in subsidy in the Uruguay round is effective from 1986, so it takes into account much that has already been done. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would agree that where heavy subsidies are given to small. inefficient farms on the continent, that undermines the opportunities for our larger family farmers to be efficient and to secure a larger market. It is important that they should have a better chance of being very efficient, so that they may enjoy a bigger share of the food market.

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to study the Audit Commission report on day surgeries? She will note that it clearly demonstrates disparities in efficiency between authorities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that organisations spending billions of pounds of public money have a duty not only to determine best practice but to implement it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Audit Commission has done an extremely good job on the education and health services. The report that came out today is particularly interesting. It shows that different district health authorities vary very much in the efficiency with which they use their resources, particularly with regard to day surgery. It points out that if all health authorities brought their day surgery up to the level of the best 25 per cent., 186,000 more patients could be treated at no extra cost. That would help enormously to reduce waiting lists. It would not require any more money, just better use of the money that they already have. Indeed, we have already given a great deal more money to the health service. In the

past three years, it has gone up from £24 billion to £26 billion to £29 billion—far better than the Labour party achieved during its time in government.

Mrs. Heal: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Heal: As the Prime Minister has said that there are incontestable signs that the economy is working in the way in which the Government intended it to, does she gain any satisfaction from the comprehensive report published this week by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce which shows that industries everywhere, including the west midlands, are already in severe recession?

The Prime Minister: Where we had inflation in the economy—where the extra money supply was going not into extra growth but into extra prices—it was vital that we squeezed it out. The report from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce shows that we were entirely justified in reducing the interest rate from 15 per cent. to 14 per cent. at the precise time when we did, and I should have thought that Opposition Members would have had the integrity to admit it.

Mr. Fry: Will my right hon. Friend turn her attention to the plight of British agriculture and agree that, basically, it is the fault of the monstrous common agricultural policy, which was devised and is administered by the Commission in Brussels? Is not it time to point out to Mr. Delors that his proposal earlier this week that the unelected Commission will take over all tax, environmental and employment law will be totally rejected by her Government?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food battles nobly for British farmers. We object to discrimination in favour of small farmers on the continent, for many of whom farming is not their livelihood, and against British farmers, who have family farms much bigger than those on the continent and a high standard of efficiency. Those with a high standard of efficiency should have a bigger share of the market for food, and therefore should get bigger and better incomes.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yes, Sir. The business of the House will be as follows: MONDAY 29 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 30 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill.
WEDNESDAY 31 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on noise abatement and the environment, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 1 NOVEMBER—It will be proposed that the House will meet for prorogation.
The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received, and any other business as necessary.

Dr. Cunningham: As the Prime Minister is always anxious to address the House on European Community matters, may we have an assurance that she will make a statement on her return from the European summit next week?
Will the Leader of the House respond to requests from all parts of the House for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to be ready to make a statement to the House before prorogation if at any time there are major changes in the serious situation in the Gulf?
May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy on the report of the Cullen inquiry into the Piper Alpha tragedy in the North sea? As that report will have important lessons for not only that tragedy but the continuing safety of operations in the North sea, and as we understand that it is now in the hands of the Secretary of State for Energy, can we have an oral statement to the House before prorogation?
On Monday and Tuesday next week, the House is being asked to consider no fewer than 436 amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill. That alone shows the mess that that legislation is in following its consideration in the House and in the other place. Can we at least be assured that the House will have an early opportunity to vote on two important issues in it? First, I again invite the Leader of the House to ensure that we can have a free vote on the dog registration scheme, so that the real will of the House of Commons can be expressed. Secondly, can we have a convenient vote on the proposals for the Nature Conservancy Council, which are also controversial?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, as he knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister generally makes a statement to the House on her return from such meetings, but I shall bring his request to her attention.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House yesterday, but I understand why the hon. Gentleman remains concerned about the matter, and I shall bring his request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
The Cullen report on Piper Alpha is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I

understand that it is a substantial document. My right hon. Friend is arranging for it to be published and will make a statement in due course.
The hon. Gentleman draws an uncharacteristically misguided conclusion from the fact that there are 436 amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill for consideration—[Interruption.] It is a lot, but the amendments show the extent to which the Government, in their consideration of this matter in another place, have been willing to respond sensibly to sensible discussions.
I agree that the two items to which the hon. Gentleman referred, particularly dog registration, require consideration. If the House is able to handle the rest of the legislation reasonably expeditiously, it is obviously desirable that those matters be considered at a reasonable hour. I think that that issue can best be discussed further through the usual channels.

Sir Ian Lloyd: In his significant evidence to the inquiry by the Select Committee on Procedure into the workings of the Select Committee system, my right hon. and learned Friend made the significant proposal that Select Committees should, wherever possible, attempt to reach a conclusion. In response, the Select Committee concluded that the subject of science and technology was too important a matter to be absent from the agenda of the House of Commons.
The Select Committee made the interesting proposal that two Members of the House should be added to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology and that that Committee should be made into a Joint Committee on that subject. How soon does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to respond to that extraordinarily interesting and important suggestion? How soon may we expect to debate this equally interesting report?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must admit that I approach with some hesitation a question that starts from the premise that I have been giving significant evidence about something. I have noticed this proposal in the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, but I have not yet had time to study it. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and I shall study the report with all the more care because of that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House ascertain whether there will be time next week for a debate on what appears to be a totally novel development in the management of the health service? Hospitals—the name of the one announced was Guy's hospital in Southwark—are now sending their nurses and doctors, who have been trained for and paid for here and have been engaged here, to work in hospitals abroad during their time of contract to the NHS. In that case, they are being sent to a military hospital in Saudi Arabia.
Secondly, as we now know that there will be an Adjournment debate on Wednesday on an environmental subject, will the Leader of the House tell us whether that betokens a welcome change, in that there will be a regular annual occasion, on a more formal basis, for proper debates on the state of the environment? Shall we not have to rely on the occasional allocation of spare time because such debates will be a built-in part of our agenda?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the first point, I am afraid that I cannot comment on the substance of what the hon. Gentleman says and I cannot offer him the prospect of a debate on that topic in the few days remaining of this Session. However, I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
On the environmental matter, the hon. Gentleman should be content to count his blessings for the week ahead; we can see how we get on thereafter.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that there is a hope of having a debate next week on the plight of the hostages in the middle east? I have a constituent who is in that unfortunate position, and who is not a guest, but a hostage of Iraq. When I read in the papers that the French are sending mail through the diplomatic bag and are allowing families to telephone French hostages on a freephone service to Iraq, I wonder whet her we are doing sufficient. Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on that matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs making a statement on that and other matters yesterday. He will have told the House, as is the position, that the welfare of British people in Iraq and in Kuwait, as well as the welfare of those still held hostage in the near east, is one of his first and continuing concerns. One must recollect that the plight of the hostages in Iraq and in Kuwait is the consequence of the gross misbehaviour of the Government of Iraq. I will bring my hon. Friend's specific concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 1453, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).
[That this House applauds the Right honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for helping to secure the release of some British hostages from Iraq; calls on the Prime Minister to publicly thank and congratulate her Right honourable Friend; and urges her to maximise diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi authorities for the release of all hostages, of whatever nationality.]
If the Government had made official representations on behalf of the very sick and the aged, Mr. Ron Duffy might still be alive. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether she believes in the statement made by Winston Churchill many years ago:
To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war"?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is difficult to dissent from the quotation rightly attributed to Winston Churchill. One of its consequences is that unprovoked naked aggression such as that committed by the Government of Iraq is wholly to be condemned by either standard. On early-day motion 1453, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement yesterday made it clear that we welcome the release of the British nationals who have been released, and we look for more.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Could we have a debate shortly about a daft EC draft directive on birds? For many years, those of us who live in the countryside have known that there are three kinds of

birds: protected birds, game birds and pests. As the Italians and the French slaughter all their birds indiscriminately in what the French call "la chasse", the EC directive will prevent us from culling pests such as wood pigeons in a sensible way. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure all those in the countryside that we take these matters seriously, that this is an issue where national sovereignty should be paramount and that we will not allow ourselves to be run over by yet another daft EC directive?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend may seek to draw constitutional implications that are a shade wider than is deserved by the ornithological subtleties which he is discussing. However, I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that he has decided to close down Parliament for this Session five hours before I got No. 1 to the Home Office? Is he aware that the question asked for free television licences for all old-age pensioners? I have a suggestion for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He reckons that he has power, and he is supposed to be the deputy Prime Minister. Why does not he get the proposal into the next Queen's Speech? We will guarantee to support it and to get it through in 24 hours.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Had I known that we were closing the House down five hours before the hon. Gentleman had a question to pose, it would have enhanced my enthusiasm for that proposition; nevertheless, he has taken the opportunity to bring this issue to the attention of the House. The answer to his argument is a familiar one—that the cost of any such concession would have to be borne by other licence holders. That is one of the questions which is never addressed by those who advance the argument for free licences.

Mr. John Bowis: On the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport about the central London rail study, will my right hon. and learned Friend invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to come forward shortly with proposals on the public transport element of the London assessment studies, so that London south of the river can benefit from the same increased investment in public transport which is now happily being given to London north of the river.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will bring my hon. Friend's point, understandably put forward on behalf of his constituents, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I cannot promise that he will respond in the course of the next few days.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House please arrange for an early debate on the extortionate rates of interest charged by many licensed moneylenders? In the Leicester area, and no doubt in other parts of the country, interest rates are pushing towards an annual percentage rate of an incredible 2,000 per cent. Is he aware that those moneylenders batten on to the very poor, usually the unemployed, and always on to people who cannot get loans from banks or building societies? Will the Government deal with this disgrace at once, or at least allow the House to debate it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has done a modest service to the cause he advocates by publicising it in the House today. He will know that that matter has preoccupied Governments for many years. I was responsible for introducing the Consumer Credit Act as long ago as 1973. I shall bring his up-to-date concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Could we have a statement on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that purports to set aside the British system of parole? Does that institution serve any useful purpose? It seems to meddle a lot in our domestic affairs. As we are not willing to concede sovereignty to the European Community, why should we concede it to a bunch of unelected foreign lawyers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall of course arrange for the particular point raised by my hon. Friend to be studied by those responsible. My hon. Friend might recollect that the jurisdiction of the court and the commission was established in the early 1950s largely on the basis of proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Government as part of our determination to establish respect for human rights throughout the continent, which still remembered vividly the deprivation of those human rights following Nazi activity during the war.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Last week, the Leader of the House suggested that he would hasten slowly on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland. In the light of the Precedure Committee report published today, is there any justifiable reason for continuing a delay that has extended from 1978 when the then Procedure Committee recommended such a Select Committee?
If a Select Committee on Northern Ireland was set up, it would deliver a message from this House to those trying to detach Northern Ireland from the kingdom. That Select Committee could deal with those affairs of Northern Ireland that would never be under the scrutiny of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House is always mindful of the points advanced by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, not least in the light of yesterday's particular tragedies. I do not want to sound in any sense dismissive of their deep concern, but my recollection of the report of the Select Committee is that it concluded that now is not a sensible time to establish a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. That is the recommendation, so it does not induce me to take a different view. I shall, of course, study the matter with the care that it deserves.

Mr. Toby Jessel: On noise, and having asked for it exactly a week ago, may I warmly welcome the decision of the Government to hold a debate on it next Wednesday? However, although the lead Department in this matter is obviously the Department of the Environment, may I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to the fact that a large proportion of the matter with which the report on noise deals is transport noise, whether from aircraft, helicopters, lorries or trains? Therefore, could he consider how to draw into the debate Ministers from the Department of Transport as well who might listen to the debate and take account of the wishes of the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that my hon. Friend, having had years of practice speaking under the flight paths from Heathrow, has developed a powerful noise-emitting organ on his own part. I will draw the point he makes to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that my hon. Friend will not conclude from the speed with which I responded to his request that I shall always do so with similar speed in future.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House take note of early-day motion 1446, "Retention of the Multi-fibre Arrangement":
[That this House welcomes the lobby of the textile workers and expresses strong opposition to the Government policy of phasing out the Muliti-Fibre Arrangement from 1991 without any safeguards yet in place and without any transition period to ensure preservation of a strong textile industry; and reminds. the Government that child labour, absence of health and safety laws and trade union rights, dumping, outward processing and fraudulent trade marks are the hallmark of some areas of so-called competition, and that without proper safeguards there will be further catastrophic job losses, in an industry already struggling against high interest rates and an over-valued pound and more members of a skilled and dedicated work force will be thrown on the scrap-heap.]
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that all this week, a Trades Union Congress delegation is lobbying Members of Parliament because of great concern over the fact that the Government are now admitting that they are accepting Common Market policy to phase out the multi-fibre arrangement without any provision for safeguards through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and no phasing-out period to ensure that we develop a soundly-based, confident textile industry? Many jobs are threatened in the textile and clothing industry, including in my constituency, where 14,000 jobs depend directly on the textile industry. What action will the Government take to reassure the industry? Will they retain the multi-fibre arrangement, which has served the industry well in the past and is needed for confidence in the future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though there is something surprising in what he says. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that we are firmly committed to the Community policy of phasing out the M FA after the present extension expires next year. But it is also clear that that should take place as an essential part of the general strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines and the lowering of trade barriers generally, which are at the heart of the objectives of the Uruguay round. The Uruguay round is intended to promote trade opportunities generally, including for those in the third world for whom the hon. Gentleman sometimes seeks to speak. It must all be put in the proper context, and there is no surprise about the policy to which he draws attention.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the earliest possible debate on the management of the commuter rail services in Network SouthEast because, despite the record levels of capital investment from the Government going into British Rail, it seems that the managers persist in producing ill-timed trains and bad timetables for my constituents and others in south-west London?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Patronage Secretary and I, who sit alongside each other on the Front Bench, both represent constituencies in the same region, and I do not think that either of us would wish completely to repudiate on behalf of our constituents the points made by my hon. Friend. I would not go further than that in accepting the points he makes, but I shall bring them to the attention of those responsible for the management of the railway system.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Leader of the House will he mindful that, just before the recess, he placed in the Library the document on privatisation recommendations and consultative matters. He and others will be fully apprised of the difficulties concerning private Bills. They become quite an embarrassment sometimes, and there are illogicalities in the procedures, some of which are serious. For example, this week we had the Third Reading of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill at a time when the Queen's Speech is likely to announce enabling measures for privatisation. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman announce, now or next week, the extent to which progress is being made to achieve some changes in the privatisation proposals?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Two points are intermingled there. The privatisation proposals are a separate policy question, and the hon. Gentleman will have to await the Queen's Speech before he learns the Government's intentions in that respect. Private Bills are an important topic, the management of which has been preoccupying myself and others for some time. We are still considering the way in which we should proceed in the light of my consultation document, and I hope that we shall be able to get ahead with it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the number of deaths prevented by the wearing of seat belts has been remarkable. However, when cars are fitted with rear seat belts but those belts are not worn, more injuries are being caused to rear seat passengers. At present, the law says that only children must wear rear seat belts. Will he find time in the near future for a debate on the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and see how far we can consider it in the light of what he said.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the Chamber and make a statement before the House rises on women's refuges and the way in which the change in the benefit laws has put more and more women at risk from personal violence because they are unable to claim support from the Department without disclosing their whereabouts? Individual refuges are suffering as a consequence.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise an early debate on that topic, but I shall bring the point to the attention of my right hon. Friends. The hon. Lady may have the opportunity of raising the matter during the debate on the Queen's Speech.

Mr.Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend try

to arrange a debate on the textile industry? When the textile mills ran into difficulties in the north-west, the workers did not get lucrative redundancy payments and a job at another mill somewhere else, as the miners did in another pit, but had to work hard, and the survivors are doing well. They will continue to do well as long as there is fair trading and no dumping into the United Kingdom. Can we impress on the Government that, when the new arrangements are made, they should bear that aspect in mind? We are fighting for the future of an industry on which this country was founded.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly need no reminding of the importance of the textile industry, and I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, which is in the Government's mind as they seek to promote liberal but fair trading conditions. I shall bring that point to my colleagues' attention.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Does the Leader of the House agree that the reason that not one Scottish Tory is present in the Chamber this afternoon is because they have read the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure and are too ashamed to come here and admit that it put the finger on them as being primarily responsible for the fact that there is no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in Scotland we face problems in the steel industry and damp housing, and that there is low morale in education, yet we continue to be denied a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the legitimate instrument to bring the Government to account.
Will the right hon. Gentleman talk to the man next to him, the Patronage Secretary—the Chief Whip—get hurl to bend a few arms up a few Tory backs, and ensure that, when we go into the new Session, Scottish Tories face up to their responsibility to the Scottish people and provide us with the instrument of investigation that every English Department has?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has a total misunderstanding of the gentle techniques of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I notice that the Select Committee's report urges the Leader of the House to continue to search for a solution to that problem, and that reaching such a solution may require compromises on all sides. I have tried to achieve that in the past. There a re ample opportunities for important Scottish matters to be debated in the House in a number of ways.

Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the contribution that United States bases such as Burtonwood and Warrington make, both to local economies and Anglo-American relations. Will he find time next week to arrange a debate to discuss the impact were any of those bases to close?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government have already announced this year that a total of four United States' facilities in Britain have been or are being returned to the control of the Ministry of Defence, but no further changes have yet been decided. The Ministry of Defence is in close contact with the United States authorities over any possible future changes. I cannot go beyond that now, but I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Ms. Joan Walley: In a week when House of Commons chefs walked out because of salmonella scares, will the Leader of the House say when he intends to find time to debate the way in which this place is run? Will he have some regard for health and safety issues? When he walks around the corridors—not the main ones, but those outside—will he look at the totally unacceptable standards of cleanliness in this building and come forward with real proposals for food nutrition and food handling standards, bearing in mind that many thousands of people use the facilities of the Palace of Westminster?
Finally, when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring forward proposals to remove Crown immunity from the Palace of Westminster?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I did not hear every component of the hon. Lady's question; but on the general point that she made, I would not accept such a far-ranging and comprehensive condemnation of every aspect of the House or of every aspect of the catering system, but I would readily agree that there is substantial room for improvement in many respects. That is one of the reasons that has prompted the Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker to invite Sir Robin Ibbs to prepare a report on improving the management of the House, and the Commission will, I hope, be considering that report shortly. The hon. Lady will find that it is directly related to some of the management issues with which she is concerned.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early statement on the finding by a judge in the High Court this week that the former Ealing Labour council acted improperly in 1987 when granting planning permission to a small sect for a mosque and town houses on an industrial estate in Northolt? Could that matter be brought to the attention of the House and properly debated, since the council acted improperly, in total disregard of the feelings of local people and industry and everyone concerned with the matter—and especially since not a single member of the sect lives in Northolt?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is second to none in bringing to the attention of the House the shortcomings of the formerly Labour-controlled council that covers his constituency. I could not possibly accede to every request that he makes for these matters to be debated here, but he may take some comfort from the fact that the electors in Ealing passed their own judgment on that council at the last election.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have another debate on the exchange rate mechanism? Is it true that the Governor of the Bank of England commissioned a report from the economics division of the bank into the appropriate rate of entry for sterling? Is it also true that an interim report was produced but that the Governor expected a figure to be submitted to him—a figure which was not submitted in time for the Chancellor's statement, so that there is now some confusion in the Bank of England about why its views and all the work that it has done on the matter were completely ignored by the Government? Does not that show that entry was a political decision taken irrespective of its economic consequences?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nobody is more adept than the hon. Gentleman at launching into proceedings of this sort a whole series of allegations at a time when they cannot be assessed or responded to. He had the opportunity to raise these points when the Chancellor was answering questions earlier this afternoon, and he might have taken that chance.

Mr. David Sumberg: May we have a debate next week on airport security? I ask that in the light of the report in today'sManchester Evening News by the paper's reporter Peter Spencer that, on Tuesday, officials of the Department of Trade and Industry went to Manchester airport on an inspection visit and discovered a serious security breach which involved the carrying of a gun and explosives through the security area. Had the officials been terrorists, they would have been allowed to get on an aircraft. That is very worrying for my constituents who use this airport, so will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Transport and to ask him to make an urgent statement in the House on the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise either a debate or a statement on the matter. Of course, it does need to be taken seriously, and I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the somewhat sleazy appointments by the Prime Minister of some of the trustees of the boards of the national institutions, and in view of the conviction of Gerald Ronson, when can the House have a statement on what the Prime Minister intends to do to get that gentleman off the board of the natural history museum, to which she appointed him?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer any comment on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Arts is lurking around the premises and I shall draw it to his attention when he joins me on the Bench.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the concern expressed in the House about the possible effects of the proposed European directive on traffic in live animals for slaughter. When he is looking into the business for the next Session, will he be good enough to seek an opportunity for the House to debate that directive before it becomes a fait accompli? As Chairman of the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for that debate to be held not at 3 o'clock in the morning, but in prime time?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I find it hard enough to manage the affairs of the House and fit them into the hours that are available for general purposes. If I had also to take into account the need to meet my hon. Friend's ambitions to get the best television coverage, my task would be even more difficult. I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's general point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Ms. Harriet Harman: As it is now widely recognised that the victims of medical accidents get a raw deal in the courts system, may we have an early debate on the setting up of a no-fault compensation scheme so that money can go to the victims and not to the lawyers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate on that topic in the limited time available before the House is prorogued at the end of this Session. Of course, the hon. Lady will have many opportunities in future to draw the matter to the attention of the House.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the prospect, and encourage a White Paper on the whole question, of economic and monetary union, and will he follow it with a debate? Does he agree that the idea that economic and monetary union attached to the principle of subsidiarity is a one-way ticket to a federal train and a central bank of the kind outlined not necessarily by Mr. Delors but by Mr. Christophersen in the European Commission?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even given the relative simplicity of my hon. Friend's question, I would be unwise to attempt an answer during business questions.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Leader of the House recall that my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I went to Iraq last month on a peace mission? Therefore, may we have a debate on early-day motion 1453 so that the whole House may have an opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on having the courage to follow in our footsteps and on helping to secure the release of some of the British hostages?
[That this House applauds the Right honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for helping to secure the release of some British hostages from Iraq; calls on the Prime Minister to publicly thank and congratulate her Right honourable Friend; and urges her to maximise diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi authorities for the release of all hostages, of whatever nationality.]
Does the Leader of the House accept that the plight of the hostages is far too important simply to be left to a few Back Benchers and a former Prime Minister, and that it is up to the Government to accept their responsibilities and do everything possible to maximise the diplomatic pressure on Saddam Hussein for the release of all the hostages of whatever nationality, because he has no moral right and no right under international law to hold any of them?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to follow the hon. Gentleman into an assessment of the comparative courage of himself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It is important that, on humanitarian grounds, we should welcome, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did yesterday, the release of British nationals. That is welcomed by us all. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman went on to agree with the Government by saying that the fundamental cause of this problem is the brutal illegality of the action taken by the Government of Iraq. We must all continue to devote our united efforts to that issue.

Mr. David Trimble: I regret that there is no provision next week for a debate on security in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that statements of the sort that we had yesterday are unsatisfactory, not only because they involve invidious choices about which incident one responds to, but because the brief time available for discussion after such a

statement and the limited range of questions that can be asked do not allow for a proper exploration of all the issues. Will he arrange for a proper debate in which, perhaps, the Government could take some steps to resolve the constitutional uncertainty which is the root cause of the terrorism from which we suffer?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not begin to underestimate the importance of both aspects of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall certainly remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of the continuing wish not just of those who represent that part of the United Kingdom to have the matter under continuous and serious scrutiny in the House.

Mr. Trimble: And properly discussed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, and properly discussed. Nevertheless, it must take its place among the many other matters for which the House is responsible. I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that yesterday's statement and subsequent questions were not sufficient to exhaust the topic.

Mr. Trimble: It was scarcely enough to deal with the matter.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It represented what it was meant to represent—an instant response by the House and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the deep concern about those incidents. In fact, we accommodated the statement alongside two other statements in a very crowded parliamentary afternoon. That is a sign of the extent to which the House is concerned about the very points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I shall certainly bear in mind the way in which he put them.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: As it is generally accepted that lone parents have had a raw deal on income during recent years—not least because of the change in 1987 that made it more difficult for them to work and retain benefit—will the House give two cheers for the White Paper that is due to be published next week? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for a statement on the day that it is published so that hon. Members will have an opportunity to question the Government about the proposed quango? The point must be made that, during the past seven years, the Government have cut by one third the number of staff in the "liable relative" section of local social security offices—yet the National Audit Office says that those staff made benefit savings for the taxpayer and gained extra benefits for parents totalling eight times as much as their wages. Are those savings from staff cuts now to be used to create another quango, while lone parents remain the losers? It is crucial that a statement is made, so that the issue can be clarified before we debate the White Paper.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Contrary to the impression given by the hon. Gentleman, Government policies have been directed towards the maintenance of and an improvement in the way that lone parents are treated. On a less contentious point, I welcome his two cheers for 'the prospective White Paper. I shall draw his request for a statement to accompany the publication of the White Paper to the attention of my right hon. Friend 'the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Mr. Tony Banks: May we have an early debate on the enormous difference in constituency work load carried by individual Members? Some Members—they include some Conservative Members—are struggling with constituency caseloads that are actually breaking their backs, while for other Members—they are mostly on the Conservative Benches—the only problem appears to be working out which garden fete to open on a Saturday. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House of any other occupation that would have such a disparity in work loads, but still allocate exactly the same resources to each individual?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman so often raises a point that deserves reasonable consideration but overloads it with tendentious and critical points that devalue his contribution to the discussion. A maximum figure is set for office costs, allowances and other matters, and various Members take up that allowance to differing degrees. The House will no doubt have another opportunity, in due course, to consider the matter more widely.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can we have an early statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the European Community's seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund? I understand that the directive, which will come into force on 1 January 1981, contains a paragraph inserted by the European Commission to the effect that shipyard communities in what was the German Democratic Republic should be given additional financial aid. Although that aid should rightly and properly be given to those communities, there are shipbuilding communities on the Clyde, on Merseyside and elsewhere that require and demand the same sympathetic consideration by the European Community and the Government.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a statement on that point, despite its importance to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Max Madden: May I join others in urging the Leader of the House to organise an early debate on the textile and clothing industry? A textile lobby consisting of textile workers from Yorkshire and other parts of the country has this week warned all hon. Members of the danger of recession returning to the industry, which is being crucified by high interest rates and unfair trade.
As the negotiations are being conducted by the EEC, it is only right that the House should give its advice to the negotiators concerning the vital importance of ensuring that proper safeguards are retained for the textile and clothing industry. I urge the Leader of the House to give proper prominence to the industry, which is the fourth largest manufacturing industry in Britain, as well as the fifth largest employer and one of our major exporters. Surely we deserve more than a half-hour Adjournment debate at the fag end of the Session, which is what we got last July. We need a full debate to ensure that Ministers stoop oozing complacency about the problems of the industry and do something to safeguard it.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of complacency about the problems and opportunities facing the textile industry. The House and the Government are

aware of its importance. The Government have made a substantial contribution to the formulation of Community policy on this matter. We are keeping a close eye on it in the management of the Uruguay round and we shall continue to do so. I shall see whether there is an opportunity, when the new Session begins, for a debate on the Floor of the House, although I can give no promise in that respect. The House should not underestimate the importance that the Government attach to the health and prosperity of the industry.

Mr. John McAllion: May we have an early debate on the Government's attitude to re-emerging trade unionism at GCHQ? The House needs to know whether the staff federation will be allowed to form links with other trade unions, whether the Government support the certification of the staff federation as an independent trade union and whether we are now witnessing the beginning of the end of the unjust, undemocratic and unjustifiable ban on trade unions at GCHQ.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is probably not possible to say much that is new about the topic to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. There are no formal links between the General Communications Staff Federation and any other trade union. It was made clear to the GCSF from the outset, by the management of GCHQ, that affiliation to any outside bodies was not acceptable, and that remains the position.

Mr. Harry Barnes: In view of the recent terrible events in Northern Ireland, may the House have an opportunity to pay tribute to those brave people in Northern Ireland who stand up for peace? I am referring to people such as Nancy Gracy, who runs a group that opposes intimidation and terrorism, and to those who are associated with the peace train that will be running from Portadown to Dublin this weekend.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but the whole House has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to, and support of, those who are trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland in place of trouble, and takes with the utmost seriousness tragic disasters of the kind that happened yesterday.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will be another full debate on the crisis in the Gulf and on the middle east before any decision is made by the Government to deploy troops against Iraq? Will he give us the opportunity to have a serious debate not only on the plight of hostages from Britain, France and other countries who are held in Iraq but on the plight of the Bangladeshi people in Jordan and in Turkey, where they are incarcerated in a camp? Will he also allow us a full discussion of the plight of the largest unrecognised nation in the region—the Kurdish people, who number 30 million and who have been abominably treated by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria over the years?
It is important that we should recognise that peace in the region can come only when the rights of the Palestinian and Kurdish people, and the right to democracy in every country, are recognised. The deployment of troops will not solve the problem: it will merely delay its solution for much longer.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not mean to be frivolous, but the length of the hon. Gentleman's question almost amounts to a contribution to a debate on such a scale that we need not have the debate. There will he an opportunity during the debate on the Queen's Speech, when no doubt there will be a day devoted—in the ordinary way—to foreign affairs. I cannot make any promises beyond that. Of course, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will keep the House informed of developments, as he has done heretofore.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: We cannot wait for the Queen's Speech. When persons sitting on green Benches take decisions that will send young men and women to a war of doubtful outcome in deserts, should not there be an urgent, specific parliamentary debate? Does the Leader of the House realise that those of us who attended the Adjournment debate at 2.30 in the morning—heaven knows why a debate on hostages takes half an hour at 2.30 while we spend three hours on Redbridge market; what sort of priority is that—were absolutely chilled by the Minister of State's statement?
Before there is any sneering, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noticed that, among the most cautious are the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who have distinguished—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was very late at night, but we are not debating the matter again now. Could the hon. Member please ask a question?

Mr. Dalyell: Quite simply, unlike some hon. Members who have been rather casual about the military options, there are those of us who have been tank crew and worn the Queen's uniform. Are we to be dismissed? Are we not to have a parliamentary debate? It is a scandal.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must judge the extent to which we attach importance to Parliament's role in this matter by the fact that we arranged, to general welcome, a special debate during the recess on this important topic and that there was a long period devoted to a statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, which started off with a reaffirmation by the shadow Foreign Secretary of the essential unity of the position of both major parties on this matter.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Would the Leader of the House reflect upon the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and note that today there has been a further insult to Scottish hon. Members: the Secretary of State making a statement on the testing of primary school pupils in Scotland and not to the House, in respose to a written question put by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), because he has a feel for matters historical.
Could you—and perhaps the Leader of the House—in your procession through the House note that one disparaged leader of the Labour party, Ramsay MacDonald has been put on a pedestal in a place of prominence, whereas the bust of a revered and honoured leader of the Labour party, James Keir Hardie, is skulking about under a display cabinet? Is there any political significance in that denigration of Keir Hardie?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fancy that the question extends beyond my responsibility in answering business questions. I hesitate to throw in the additional fact that Ramsay MacDonald, unlke Keir Hardie, for a time had the advantage of representing my home constituency of Aberavon and that may be the reason.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Could my right ho.. and learned Friend arrange for a statement at the earliest possible time next week on the all-day closure of the M1 last Tuesday due to a spillage of dangerous chemicals? The spillage seemed to display the inadequacy of the response by the authorities in providing for vehicles coming onto and getting off the motorway. The whole M1 was brought to a halt because they were ill prepared and there was no way for the public to know that the road was totally closed. It caused delays of seven, eight and nine hours to people who had no advance notice that they were going to be stuck on the motorway. No provision was made for them to exit at an earlier stage. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could arrange for such a statement next week on that matter and on the implications of potentially dangerous chemical transport in this country.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the matter is indeed on the scale suggested by my hon. Friend it certainly deserves to be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I cannot promise a debate about it, but I can certainly bring the topic to his attention.

BILLS PRESENTED

COMPENSATION FOR MEDICAL INJURY

Ms. Harriet Harman presented a Bill to provide that persons injured as a result of mishap during treatment by the National Health Service may be awarded compensation without having to prove negligence on the part of the National Health Service; to define eligibility for compensation; to establish a Medical Injury Compensation Board and to make other provision for the assessment of eligibility and payment of compensation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

LICENSING REFORM

Mr. Anthony Coombs, supported by Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Roger King, Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Simon Burns, presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

BROADCASTING BILL

[Ways and Means] (No. 2)

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the inclusion of—


(1) provisions by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act for the provision of Channel 3 or Channel 5 services may be required to make payments to the Independent Television Commission as contributions towards the expenses of the body nominated under the Act in connection with the maintenance of a national television archive;
(2) provisions under which financial penalties imposed on bodies holding licences granted under the Act may be recovered from persons controlling such bodies, and provision for sums so recovered to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments to the Broadcasting Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 22, 35, 46 to 48, 111, 399 to 406, 466 to 499, 1 to 21, 23 to 34, 36 to 45, 49 to 110, 112 to 398, 407 to 465 and 500 to 676.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Clause 6

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO LICENSED SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 6, line 38, at end insert—
("(4A) The rules specified in the code referred to in subsection (3) shall, in particular, take account of the following matters—
(a) that due impartiality should be preserved on the part of the person providing a licensed service as respects major matters falling within subsection (1)(c) as well as matters falling within that provision taken as a whole; and
(b) the need to determine what constitutes a series of programmes for the purposes of subsection (2).

(4B) The rules so specified shall, in addition, indicate to such extent as the Commission consider appropriate—
(a) what due impartiality does and does not require, either generally or in relation to particular circumstances;
(b) the ways in which due impartiality may be achieved in connection with programmes of particular descriptions;
(c) the period within which a programme should be included in a licensed service if its inclusion is intended to secure that due impartiality is achieved for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) in connection with that programme and any programme previously included in that service taken together; and
(d) in relation to any inclusion in a licensed service of a series of programmes which is of a description specified in the rules—
(i) that the dates and times of the other programmes comprised in the series should be announced at the time when the first programme so comprised is included in that service, or
(ii) if that is not practicable, that advance notice should be given by other means of subsequent programmes so comprised which include material intended to secure, or assist in securing, that due impartiality is achieved in connection with the series as a whole;
and those rules shall, in particular, indicate that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.")

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: Nos. 15, 17 to 20, 135, 136, 170, 172, 174, 175, 252, 253, 255 and 257 to 260.

Mr. Mellor: I should like to begin by saying that it is with a very real sense of loss that I record my deep regret at the passing of our late colleague Norman Buchan. I had a lot to do with Norman during my 10 years in the House.


On some occasions we agreed; on others we did not. However, I was never in any doubt about the calibre of the man and his commitment to a whole range of issues that were well worth being committed to—not least the arts. Even if one disagreed with him, one did so cordially and with humour, as was so evident in Committee. One could always have a chat outside the Committee Room with him in the utmost amity.
I respected and liked Norman. I am deeply distressed that he is not with us today. Our debates will not be the same without him. It came as a shock to me yesterday to read of his passing. I am sure that the whole House joins me when I say that we feel a real sense of loss at his passing.
If I may refer to another preliminary matter, this is the first group of amendments to be dealt with after the Bill's return to us from another place. About 700 amendments were made in the other place. l should like to express my gratitude to the Opposition for their co-operation in ensuring that we can manage the debates in a way that will allow any remaining controversial issues to be dealt with early. I am also grateful for the assistance given by all parties in the House, but particularly by the official Opposition, which has led to a grouping of the amendments that will, I hope, enable us to have sensible debates.
I make no apology for the fact that there is a large number of amendments. We shall almost immediately discover that some are a little controversial, but most represent the Government giving effect to agreements reached in the Commons as a result of the open debate that we had. They also reflect our continuing commitment to listen to points made in debate. When, after debate, a point appears to have such force that it should not he impeded by Government obstruction, we have been only too willing to concede it. Lord Ferrers, the Minister of State, was particularly effective in conducting the Bill through the other place. He gave way gracefully and without ill will. I refer in particular to the moratorium on takeovers. We were able to meet what seemed to be the unanimous view on Second Reading in the other place that something ought to be done.
A document extending to four and a half pages includes the changes that were made in the other place. Some of them reflect our willingness to recognise the strength of feeling in the Lords—for example, in relation to the disabled and the indexation of cash bids. All those changes make it a better Bill, as do a large number—I am sorry that it is such a large number—of technical amendments that reflect the continued combing through of the Bill by the draftsmen to ensure that any minor problems were ironed out. As we know, the odd injudicious comma or the wrong word, even if it does not amount to a matter of policy, can sometimes skew meaning in a way that raises problems later. Therefore, I apologise for burdening the House with so many amendments, but I believe that for the most part they are in a good cause.
I shall deal immediately with a group of amendments that I suspect some will not think are in such a good cause. That controversial set of amendments relates to impartiality and it is right that they should be dealt with first. I shall set out my stall on the matter and then listen with care to what is said on both sides of the House and, I hope, respond later.
Since the Bill left the House, not as much has changed as some contributors to the debate in the other place

suggested—and I suspect from the look of jovial good humour on the face of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) he might also want to suggest that there have been many changes.
As a result of a small wobble over the word "current", the substantive law on impartiality in the Bill is precisely the same as it has been since 1954. That is important. We made one addition in the House in recognition of the fact that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is the broadcaster and the Independent Television Commission is the regulator. We added to the Bill a requirement for a code, making clear that the code was not one approved by Parliament because that would blur the arm's length relationship in regulations to which I and many others attach importance. The code will deal with what we know to be some of the problems. It is recognised that there were problems about what constitutes a series of programmes and about other aspects of the regulations. That will always be a difficult and sensitive area. That is why, to general acclamation—no one dissented—we made provision for a code. It will enable broadcasters to know where they stand because, if the regulators are to have the right to intervene, the broadcasters should know on what basis they may do so. Also, the public should know where they stand. All manner of folk, from time to time, take issue with what is contained in television programmes and it would probably assist if one had clear guidance as to what the ground rules were.
4.30 pm
I want to restate the principle with as much clarity as I can muster that it is the right of Parliament—it has been so for four decades—to insist that there is due impartiality on matters of current political or industrial controversy and so on. However, it is not for us to usurp the function of the regulators and state exactly what the detailed rules should be. We are not doing that in the amendments. I say that with sincerity amidst the mutterings of scepticism from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who has lifted his head from correcting the proofs of "War and Peace" or whatever he is doing. I had not expected that to be a universally acclaimed sentiment, although it is a true one.
It was necessary—and it was welcomed—for the Government to take account of the strong expressions of view in the House during the passage of the Bill. It also seemed to be eminently right that we should take account of the strong expressions of view in the other place, although not to the extent—I make no apologies for this—of accepting the precise amendments tabled by the noble Lord Wyatt and others, but to recognise their concern. That concern has been reflected in an early-day motion in the House. There was concern that the rules would need to be clear after the Bill had finished in the House. However, insights come to people at many different times. St. Paul gained his insight rather late, so I dare say that everyone else is entitled to gain theirs rather late as well. But there was still time, and we considered it right to add to the Bill a series of points that the code should cover—points that I believe to be a matter of common sense.
It is crucial for hon. Members to understand that we did not specify what the code should say about those points; we merely provided for the ITC, in drawing up its code, to take account of them. I still believe that that was a legitimate way of dealing with the sentiments that were


expressed so strongly in the other place, and that it does not blur the crucial matter of principle to which I have adhered throughout.
I shall reserve my more detailed comments until later. Let me say now, however, that I was intrigued by the allegation made persistently in the other place and elsewhere that this would be a lawyers' picnic. As I have said before, I am well aware of—and subscribe to—Ogden Nash's view of professional men:
Professional people have no cares,
Whatever happens, they get theirs.
I am certainly not anxious that my former profession should benefit unduly from any act of generosity performed late in the day. Everyone can come to this party, with their lawyers; it is not only those who take exception to some of the legislation who will have the benefit of legal advice. We have the benefit of that advice, and so has the ITC.
The Bill will not open the way for any legal challenge that is not in any case inherent in the concept of due impartiality, and the need for the regulatory body to flesh out a bare rule and make its own judgment about how that rule should be applied in complex and difficult circumstances. Provided that the ITC draws up its code in a reasonable manner, there will be no scope for judicial intervention or extensive litigation, because the normal rules of scrutiny will apply: a decision made by a public body cannot be overturned in the courts unless that body has acted unreasonably. It is no more likely that the ITC would act unreasonably when faced with a limited or skeleton framework for its code than that it would err in drawing up a code seeking to give effect to a basic principle that Parliament has set out for nearly 40 years.
I place some reliance on that. In the other place, as one or two speakers in that debate pointed out, there was a tendency for arguments about the legalities of the matter to apply not so much to the limited amendments that the Government were seeking to make as to the whole principle of the due impartiality provision itself—which, as I said, has been part of our law for nearly 40 years. Someone who had arrived the previous day from Mars—or, in the case of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), from Australia or some equally far-flung place—would assume that the argument did not concern some minor adjustments to the code proposals; he would assume that exception was being taken to the very idea of a due impartiality provision. That was where many of the more telling—or, depending on one's view, not particularly telling—legal points took us.
Let me state categorically that, if I thought for a moment that they would result in a legal picnic, I should not commend the amendments to the House; nor should I do so if I thought for a moment that they blurred the key distinction that strikes me as fundamental. Parliament has a right and a duty to prescribe due impartiality in what is still a relatively scarce service, in television. The concept of due impartiality does not exist in the written word, but I still believe that it is necessary to retain it in respect of the principal television services. It is right for us to tell those responsible that they should regulate that rule and, so that everyone knows where they stand, for there to be a code dealing with certain issues rather than avoiding them.
However, it would be wrong to dictate the way in which those issues should be dealt with, and none of the amendments does so. That is the bedrock of principle on which they are founded.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Mellor: I was about to subside into my seat for good, but I shall do so only temporarily instead.

Mr. Maclennan: I understand why the Minister prefers to reserve his detailed responses until a subsequent intervention. However, as he is advocating a change of considerable controversy and of great importance to broadcasters, as he admits, his initial speech should discharge the onus of proof for change—particularly as the Minister himself earlier made it abundantly clear that the thought that the language in use since 1954 is still adequate.
What is the mischief? Are we speaking only of the views of Lord Wyatt and of one or two other rare birds in another place, or is there a more general problem? The number of complaints made about impartiality has been minuscule.

Mr. Mellor: The Television Act 1954 prescribed the basic law, which will remain unchanged by the Bill, but instead of there being a bare requirement for a code—with which I should have been perfectly content, if it had been left to me—the question arose, as expressed in the concerns of their Lordships and in an early-day motion of this House, as to whether that bare requirement would of itself be adequate, and of whether we should perform the additional task of making it clear that the code dealt also with controversial areas.
The amendment sets out several areas which some would argue any self-respecting code would anyway be bound to cover, and which the ITC of its own volition would have chosen to cover. I should have rested perfectly content with such a provision, but as their Lordships took the view that it would be possible to achieve a broader consensus, it seemed perfectly proper to flesh out the requirements for a code by setting out certain heads that it should cover.
Such a provision could only distort the intentions of the 1954 Act if it added to the requirement for due impartiality that has always been part of the law since the creation of the independent television system. I can state categorically—and this is the belief also of the ITC—that it will not do so but will merely set out points that the ITC should take into account when drawing up its code. The amendment will not alter the substantive law but will introduce only an element of consolation for those concerned that the code might fall short in certain respects, that it will cover certain key areas. Nevertheless, the amendment does not dictate how the ITC should discharge that function.
Despite some of the huff and puff that we have heard, a much more minor amendment would make people think. Just as I have given considerable thought to whether to advance the amendments—all of which passed through my office in their drafting—and to making sure that we did not blur the principle to which I attach importance, others should be certain that they are not—as appeared to be the case from one or two speeches in another place—arguing against the principle of due impartiality, or merely wanting a good old ding-dong about what is admittedly a highly attractive subject for a good old ding-dong, without relating it to the substance of the debate.
The Government showed their good faith by reflecting on all those matters and tabling a draft amendment, albeit that it was found wanting in certain respects.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: And sometimes described as defeated in Committee.

Mr. Mellor: No, it was not defeated. The right hon. Gentleman could not have been following the Bill's progress with his customary attention. The water was tested, and certain views were ex pressed that seemed to me appropriate to take into account. That was done, and a new draft emerged that was entirely satisfactory to the ITC. After all, it is that organisation that will have to perform the duty of regulation. The ITC would not have given its approval to the amendment if it achieved only one half or one quarter of the things that those who cannot reconcile themselves to the amendment say that it will. That is the case for the amendment, and I shall let it rest at that.

Mr. Hattersley: I begin by thanking the Minister for the tribute that he paid to my late hon. Friend and colleague, Mr. Norman Buchan. Had he been with us today, Norman Buchan would have contributed to this debate with great passion and authority. We shall miss him for more than this afternoon, because he was a genuinely interesting man who took a real interest in a variety of matters in the House and outside it. I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would want me to emphasise the great loss which we feel and which the Minister was kind enough to mention.
It is difficult to follow the passion with which the Minister defended the proposed new clause. He proceeded with what is, in his new mood, his usual emollience, saying that he will listen with care and interest to all that is said. That would be enormously comforting if only we could believe that, having listened to all that we say, the Minister is likely to take any notice of it.
We know very well that the clause will be added to the Bill, although, judging from the right and hon. Gentleman's closing remarks, that will happen without the slightest enthusiasm from the Minister who pilots the Bill. He said that, to his mind, the Bill was perfectly satisfactory when it left the House and that he would have been perfectly content if it had remained as it was. He spoke of others taking a different view without identifying them.

Mr. Mellor: I made it clear that the others to whom I was referring were certain of their Lordships and hon. Members who had expressed a view in an early-day motion in this House. It is perfectly proper that I should listen to them, as I do to Opposition Members. I did so many times, and then changed the Bill as a result.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to argue that point at great length, but if the Minister had simply been willing to listen to their Lordships' views, he would have abandoned his attempt to introduce such a clause when it became clear from the outset that their Lordships did not want it to proceed. The Minister tells the House that the clause is of no consequence, and no doubt he would like the country to hear that remark—yet it is of such importance to someone that three attempts were made to devise a draft acceptable to another place, and enormous pressure was placed on the stalwarts who support the Government there to turn up and ensure that it was passed.
Somebody liked the clause and regarded it as important. I accept that that somebody is not the Minister, because his reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and

Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gave every impression of a man swimming in treacle. He was making the heaviest possible weather of defending what he had to defend. I at least propose to set out in the clearest terms within my capability why we are wholly opposed to it and to make it absolutely clear that when the Labour Government are elected we shall repeal this clause, which we regard as intimidatory and inconsistent with broadcasting in a free society.
There is general agreement among the parties, broadcasters and, I believe, the viewing public about the importance of impartiality in television. It is essential to a democracy, particularly in a society that increasingly obtains its information from television. For that reason, successive Broadcasting Acts have charged the ITA, the IBA and, soon, the Independent Broadcasting Commission with the duty of ensuring that proper impartiality and balance are preserved. From the inception of independent broadcasting to the passage of the Bill through all its stages in the House, it has been generally agreed that the judgment on how impartiality was to be maintained should be left to the body that was required to regulate independent television. It should be left to its judgment alone.
That was the view because there was a general wish, which I hope and believe is shared on both sides of the House, that the preservation of impartiality and balance should be carried out in a way that is not oppressive and is not likely to result in a deterioration of programme standards. The Government's proposal has both those disadvantages. It is oppressive in effect and will lead to reductions in the standards of certain programmes.
I have no doubt that the proposal will intimidate some programme makers, and I go further: I believe that it is intended to do so. Anyone who doubts that intention should read the speech by Lord Wyatt of Weeford, the only true begetter of the new clause in the House of Lords last Monday. He proposed that, before beginning their work, programme makers should be required to sign a declaration saying that they understand, respect and will observe the code of impartiality. The idea that programme makers should be required to sign a document accepting anything except the law of the land as it stands—the Minister was careful to tell us this is not the law of the land—is not consistent with a free society.
Before I describe the consequences of the clause, I want, partly as a result of the extraordinary activities of Lord Wyatt, to remind the House of its origins. By understanding its origins, we understand its purpose. When the Government drafted the Bill, no such clause was thought necessary. All who heard the Minister's speech will agree that it was clear that he does not regard it as necessary even today. No such clause was added or even contemplated by the Government in Committee. The idea is the product of the paranoia about broadcasting which Lord Wyatt has deployed time after time in the articles that he writes inThe Times and in the articles, if that is the right description of them, that he writes in theNews of the World.
We all know—it is almost a matter of public record—that Lord Wyatt, who has a special entrée to No. 10 Downing street, convinced the Prime Minister that to expose the independent television companies to the threat of continual litigation would severely restrict their willingness to make the controversial programmes that many of us regard as the life-blood of broadcasting in a


free society. I doubt that the Prime Minister needed much convincing, but we know that she insisted on the inclusion of the clause. I doubt that the Home Secretary has read it. It is clear from last Monday's debate in the other place that the Minister of State did not understand and, as we knew before today but which was confirmed a moment ago, the Minister for the Arts certainly does not agree with it.
The Minister for the Arts told the Royal Television Society, as late as 4 September:
Due impartiality is not a matter which can be reduced to some simple mathematical formula, nor can its achievement be guaranteed through any mechanistic statutory requirement.
On 4 September he was against a mechanistic statutory requirement. Let us examine what he advocates today. I describe it in the words of the Minister of State, as he spelt out the clause in the House of Lords last Monday:
Paragraph (a) of new subsection (4A) relates to due impartiality being achieved for each major matter of political or industrial controversy … Paragraph (b) of subsection (4A) requires the code to take account of the need to define what is meant by a series of programmes. Paragraph (a) of subsection (4B) requires the code to indicate what due impartiality requires in particular circumstances. Paragraph (b) of subsection (4B) sets out that the code should indicate the manner in which impartiality is to be achieved for different programme types. Paragraph (c) of subsection (4B) requires the code to indicate the timescale within which programmes must be included if impartiality is to be achieved over a series. Paragraph (d) of subsection 4(B) requires the code to indicate the means by which the audience is informed that impartiality".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1990; Vol. 522, c. 1144.]
That is being advocated by a Minister who is, root and branch, against mechanistic statutory requirements.
I hope that the Minister will not suggest that what his colleague in the House of Lords said cannot be described as "mechanistic or statutory", for were he to attempt to do so I should be grieved to discover that, even in this Government, the least literate this century, the Minister for the Arts has only a passing acquaintance with the English language. It is clear that what he has developed and is now advocating imposes statutory duties on the new commission to define in some particulars what objectivity and impartiality is, and is wholly mechanistic in its application.
The real question is not whether the Minister changed his position but why he has appeared to change his mind. I have no doubt that it is because pressure was put on him to produce and to create a new chain, a new limitation and a new burden on the independent television companies in the hope and intention that they will reduce the number of controversial documentary programmes that they produce.
The Minister said again today that the new Independent Television Commission is to draw up a code to ensure impartiality. He repeats time after time that the commission is responsible for the code. I shall read, at perhaps intelligible speed, what the Minister of State described as the new obligations in the House of Lords, from which the House will realise that, although it is the duty of the ITC to draw up the code, the Government are telling it what the code must contain. They are telling it the nature of the code, its provisions, its scope and in some particulars its contents. The contents are to be specified in

law and, by specifying its contents, the House, if it supports the clause, will be imposing on the television industry a series of adverse consequences.

Mr. Mellor: If the right hon. Gentleman were the ITC and were faced with a bald requirement from Parliament to have a code, I do not see how he would find it possible to discharge that duty without setting out in the code—I quote from paragraph (a) of the amendment—
what due impartiality does and does not require, either generally or in relation to particular circumstances; (b) the ways in which due impartiality may be achieved in connection with programmes of particular descriptions".
What is the point of having a code if it does not deal with those matters, and what is the harm in setting out clearly what a code should deal with?

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister for the Arts was perfectly happy to proceed in the way that he now derides throughout the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Mellor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hattersley: He does not deride it; he seemed to be doing so. He seemed happy not to have these specifications in the code until they were imposed by the Prime Minister. There was no mention of them when we debated the code before, no suggestion of them in Committee and no inclusion of them in the original draft. Since 1954, the concept of objectivity and impartiality has been left entirely to the Independent Broadcasting Authority or its successors.

Mr. Roger Gale: The right hon. Gentleman has said a couple of times that these measures were imposed on my right hon. and learned Friend by the Prime Minister, but they were brought before the House by the other place. If the Opposition in the other place were so passionately opposed to them, why did they manage to muster only a fraction of their strength to vote against them? Could it be that their Lordships, in their wisdom, realised public concern in this matter?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman talks about public concern. He can talk about it, but he cannot demonstrate it because there is virtually no public concern on record. The Government have added to the number of institutions that exist to encourage, monitor and publish details on the amount of public concern, but the number of complaints received is minuscule. I propose to deal with the large number of complaints from Conservative Members, but they must not think that they speak for the British public—a fact that they will discover to their discomfort over the next 18 months.
I wish to go through, one by one, the detriments that will be the inevitable result of the clause being passed into law. They show why I was astonished at the words of the Minister of State in another place and even more astonished by the support given to this notion by the Minister for the Arts. They are why almost everyone who has judged these matters with authority believes that the clause will result in constant litigation.
5 pm
The chairman of the Bar Council and the professor of law at the University of Oxford predict constant litigation. That is certainly the fear of the television companies, which naturally are apprehensive about it. They fear, and we believe that they are right to fear, that every group of


right-wing loonies will take them to court—perhaps frivolously, perhaps contentiously, perhaps with the intention of making a point rather than with winning a case—by arguing that a programme should be covered by the impartiality guidelines, as covered by subsection (4B)(a); by arguing that a programme should have carried a warning that it was controversial, as covered by subsection (4B)(d); or by arguing that balance has not been achieved by an alternative programme putting a different point of view and being broadcast in the required period, as required by subsection (4B)(c).

Mr. Robert Adley: rose——

Mr. Mellor: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who was bobbing up and down earlier, and then gave way to the Minister.

Mr. Adley: The best speech in the other place, for brevity and content, was by Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I have a philosophical question for the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps I should be careful about asking it and he should be careful about answering it. He referred to right-wing loonies. Does he agree that political proselytes can often be dangerous people?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course they can. It is rather like loving one's mother and not kicking dogs. We can all agree with that. The brave and interesting point comes when we start defining who those people are, and I propose to do so. First, I shall give way to the Minister for the Arts.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is good of him to give way to me again, and I shall try not to make a habit of intervening. The right hon. Gentleman is making some important technical points, and I believe that it would be useful to all of us if we had a chance to explore one of his contentions.
The nub of the point seems to be that the provision will lead to constant litigation because it is an intimidatory device to be used by the Government to compel the ITC to do something for which various loonies can then hold it to account. On the right hon. Gentleman's partial reading of the clause, that does not strike me as being exactly what the clause will permit.
The right hon. Gentleman read us chunks from Lords amendment No. 22, but he did riot quote these words from subsection (4B):
The rules so specified shall in addition"—
here are the crucial words—
indicate to such extent as the Commission consider appropriate".
In other words, it is for the commission to judge whether it considers that it is appropriate to do the things set out therein. It would be extremely difficult for a judge—although not impossible, and it would not be impossible to have masses of litigation about other matters—to say that it was wholly unreasonable for the ITC to have determined whether it was appropriate to do certain things, when the statute indicates that that was left to its discretion.

Mr. Hattersley: That point was made not by the Minister of State in another place but by one of his supporters—I took specific advice on that. The answer relates to the words that the right hon. Gentleman used in his intervention and several times in his speech—"as long as the ITC behaves reasonably". I have no doubt that the

ITC will behave reasonably, but the television companies are afraid that the group to which I referred will insist on testing the nature of reason in court and that it will say, "In this particular, the ITC did not behave reasonably. In allocating this programme under one heading while not considering it under another, impartial or not impartial, the ITC behaved not reasonably but unreasonably." The television companies are particularly concerned about the concept of "reasonable".

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the ITC should be totally unaccountable and that no group of citizens should be entitled to challenge whether it has acted reasonably?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here at the beginning of my speech, but if he was, he was not listening. I made it clear that I want impartiality to be preserved and that the ITC should have an unfettered right to make sure that that happens. I want the ITC to have the right that it has enjoyed since 1954, not least because, on the general judgment of the British public—who do not complain about partiality—the present system operates perfectly successfully. We have not heard a word today from the Minister about why a change is necessary because, despite all his debating skills, he cannot produce such an argument.

Sir Ian Gilmour: If the right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that the ITC will behave reasonably—which is what my right hon. Friend the Minister and I think—why do we need the amendment?

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman must not ask me. I shall not answer Home Office questions for another year or so, so the right hon. Gentleman must put his point to the Minister. I agree 100 per cent. with him—there is no justification for this change. The Minister has not even attempted to justify it. We have not yet heard any reason for making the change.
The fear of litigation is very much related to those groups that the broadcasters rightly suspect will take contentious actions, testing the concept of reasonableness with the intention of intimidating. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) almost challenged me to suggest who those people might be. Everyone knows that the Freedom Association takes such cases to make a point rather than to win a legal battle. Everyone has heard of Lord Chalfont's media monitoring unit. The television companies are rightly apprehensive about how such groups will behave.
Let us have no doubt about the outcome of that apprehension. Programme makers will choose the bland and the anodyne because they believe that the bland and the anodyne are safe, yet the bland and the anodyne are the last things that should characterise some programmes—in particular, the documentary programmes against which the clause is directed. The amendment will result in, and is intended to result in, a reduction in controversy, yet controversy is often the life-blood of good broadcasting.
Let me put it in simple terms. Throughout the debate in the other place, several programmes were cited as the new target for these impartiality rules—for example, "Death on the Rock", "Who Bombed Birmingham?" and Harold Pinter's programme on Nicaragua. We were repeatedly told that, because of these new rules, after such a


programme was broadcast there would be a Government health warning saying that that programme was not impartial and that, within a specified period, a programme would appear putting the contrary argument. I do not believe for a moment that that would be the outcome. The outcome will be that programmes such as "Who Bombed Birmingham?" and "Death on the Rock" will not be produced at all. I have no doubt that that is the intention of many of the proponents of the clause. That is what they want and I fear that that is what they will get if the clause is passed.
For that reason, the clause is repressive, and that is why I repeat that the next Labour Government will repeal it. We shall expect impartiality, but we shall have the sense to know that impartiality cannot be precisely defined and that the commission—and the commission alone—acting under the general law, has the duty to see that balance is preserved, not in relation to any one programme but over time. The idea that a programme's imbalance and impartiality are put right over time is wholly consistent not simply with the free society in which we live, but with the idea of plurality of broadcasting on which the Broadcasting Bill is supposed to be based. When we heard the talk of the brave new world of new broadcasting with multiple channels, the argument was always that different opinions would cancel each other out.
That argument was put before Lord Wyatt thought that he could do his worst with some programmes of which he disapproved, before he approached the Prime Minister and before the Prime Minister instructed the Minister for the Arts on what he had to do. It was put when the Broadcasting Bill was in the hands of the Home Office, not in the hands of No. 10 Downing street.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is not my right hon. Friend being unduly unkind to the Minister for the Arts? After all, since he has rewritten two thirds of the Bill, is not it understandable that the Prime Minister would like to have the odd bit that relates to the original legislation?

Mr. Hattersley: I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I understand that most of the rewriting was done by the Home Office. The fact that this proposal was imposed on the Home Office illustrates its basic purpose—to intimidate broadcasters. The result will be a reduction in high-quality broadcasting, a reduction in tolerance and a reduction in freedom—a reduction of the values that we want to see in our society. I repeat, for the third time, that we will repeal the clause at the first opportunity and, for that reason, we shall tonight vote against its incorporation in the Bill.

Mr. Julian Critchley: What on earth is all the fuss about? We left for our summer hols in July happy in the knowledge that we had persuaded the Minister of State that, at long last, he was on the right lines, only to find in October that he has been shunted into a siding. That is due to an unholy alliance between Lord Wyatt and an early-day motion signed by 100 Conservative Back Benchers—one sage and a hundred onions.[Laughter.] I am not getting paid for this.
Some of us remember Lord Wyatt—Mr. Woodrow Wyatt as he then was—when he was a Member of the House of Commons. Once heard, never forgotten. The

most accurate description of him then would probably have been "crypto-socialist". In more recent and happier times, he is the author of a column in theNews of the World entitled, believe it or not, "The Voice of Reason". He is even better known as a man of views; he has more views than a dog has fleas. How suitable it is that he should have devoted his remaining energies to emasculating his media rivals elsewhere.
Why is it that many hon. Members—I was going to say "of my great party", but that would be presumptuous—of our great party believe that we have the best newspapers in the world and the worst broadcasting, when all the evidence suggests that it is the other way round? Could it be because youthful left wingers are persuaded to join the media, while youthful right wingers go into the City, become estate agents or manage, for a time, the Scottish Conservative party?
5.15 pm
Perhaps, in the dog days of summer, I should have tabled an amendment that would have put the BBC and ITV firmly under the control of Conservative central office. Let us suppose that we had passed such an amendment. I should like to offer an example of some of the programmes that we might have been enjoying this winter. We might have had "Thought for the Day" by Mr. J. Archer and "Listen with Mother" with Mrs. Angela Rumbold. "The Weather" would be the province of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) with "England fog-bound; the continent isolated." There would have been a new series of "Dr. Finlay's Casebook" in which those two loveable Scots, Dr. Finlay and Dr. Cameron, would be played by Messrs. Forth and Forsyth. We might have had "Last of the Summer Wine" starring Sir Marcus Fox and "The Money Programme" fronted by a series of "friends of the family".
I can assure the House that no old films would be shown over bank holidays and the Christmas period. We should no longer have to watch "The Guns of Navarone" for the umpteenth time. Bank holidays would be filled by extracts from the Prime Minister's speeches at party conferences ranging over the past nine or 10 years. Such a regime would not be without its entertainment and its quiz shows. There would be a quiz show entitled "Standing Ovation" in which Young Conservatives were encouraged to make speeches and in which the one who got the longest applause would be awarded shares in the electricity industry.
Would not my clause have solved, once and for all, the problem of bias? Many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches would have been able to boast of Britain's good fortune in possessing not only newspapers such as theSun, theNews of the World, theSunday Sport andThe People, but the fairest, cleanest and best broadcasting in the world. Sadly, we have missed yet another opportunity.

Mr. Maclennan: The late Norman Buchan would have enjoyed that speech. His presence in this debate is felt by all of us; that is why we thank the Minister for paying a well-deserved tribute to him. He inspired not only the interest of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) properly spoke, but something pretty close to affection among hon. Members of all parties. He would have cared about this debate.
In all fairness to him, I must say that the Minister did not attempt to discharge the onus of proof which I


suggested, in the concluding moments of his speech, that he might do, because it is not possible to demonstrate widespread public dissatisfaction about impartiality in broadcasting. Tens of millions of viewers watch controversial and less controversial current affairs, news and documentary programmes, but the number of complaints on the ground of partiality is very small.
In the year ending March 1990, there were only 245 complaints from the public to the Independent Broadcasting Authority about impartiality. The IBA's own annual survey in 1990 on public opinion showed a pattern similar to previous years. Between 76 per cent. and 78 per cent. of the public thought that no favouritism towards any party was shown either by ITV or Channel 4. In 1988–89 the Broadcasting Complaints Commission adjudicated on only 19 complaints relating to unfairness or unjustified invasions of privacy. Six complaints were upheld wholly, five were upheld in part and eight were not upheld. In the light of those figures, it is hard to see why we should weigh in the balance Lord Wyatt and the 100 onions and allow the Government to amend the Bill in such a significant fashion at this last gasp.
In my intervention I reminded the Minister that he made his views clear not only in his speech to the Royal Television Society, to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred, but rather more fully in Committee on 30 January when he said:
When I was presented with the opportunity to reflect on whether we should make changes to the impartiality requirement it occurred to me that a Government of any stripe are always the last group to be credited with impartiality. I decided that it was better to leave well alone. That is what I have done. We have not fiddled around with the impartiality arrangements. We felt that it was better to leave goalposts where they were."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 30 January 1990; c. 411.]
I understand the ways of politics and the pressures that Ministers can be put under by other Ministers, sometimes senior ones. I do not find it in any way disreputable that the Minister should have deployed the argument that he has deployed this afternoon with his customary skill. His position today is in stark contrast to what he has said publicly and in the House on a number of occasions.

Mr. Mellor: I reject that imputation, however courteously put, because it is not so. The burden of what I was trying to say to the House earlier is that the law on impartiality, the requirement that there should be due impartiality on matters of current industrial and political controversy and so on, is precisely the law as it was in 1954. I was not prepared to make that change. What I said in January stands and what I said in September was said in the clear knowledge that we were going to do what we have subsequently done.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Oh!

Mr. Mellor: Oh yes, absolutely.
In September I dealt with some of the solutions put forward by Lord Wyatt which I thought, and have successfully been able to persuade others, were not workable. We have not moved the goalposts. Everyone agreed that the referee should have a proper rule book so that the players knew what rules they were playing to. We are simply saying that that rule book should contain rules to be determined as to those particular aspects of the game and not by us.
I am prepared to be criticised for making a change that some people see as purely cosmetic, but that change does not go to the root of the impartiality law, which is exactly as it was.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister says that in his speech to the Royal Television Society he knew exactly what was going to happen, but the proposals have changed three or four times since then and we are now dealing with a proposition that is quite different from that first put forward in the other place.
I admire the Minister's dexterity in a purely rhetorical sense as he has tried to reconcile the irreconcilable. Neither he nor I, nor the public, are interested in the thought processes that led him to arrive at his stand—we are more interested in the effect of what has been done.

Mr. Mellor: I respect the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the Bill and I want to pose to him this question: what will be the difference that television companies will face today, as against what they have faced for nearly 40 years, apart from the fact that there will be a code about which everyone agreed anyway? What substantive change wreaks the mischief complained of?

Mr. Maclennan: As I said in my earlier intervention, I believe that the onus of proof on the mischief lies with the Minister. I do not believe that he has discharged it. As to what will be the consequence of this, who am I to put myself in the shoes of many broadcasters who have cast doubts upon the appropriateness of the clause as amended? There is not one broadcasting company that has not expressed its grave reservations about this change. They have all taken endless legal advice. Some of us have received the authorative opinion of Mr. Anthony Scrivener, chairman of the Bar Council. He has spoken of continuing litigation that will be necessary to sort out the consequences of the amended clause.
It is plainly not possible for me to answer the question posed by the Minister, any more than it is for the broadcasters to answer it. That is the nub of the problem. The clause will leave us with a vast uncertainty that cannot be resolved by debate across the Floor, but by a whole series of cases in the courts. It will not be solved by one case as the judges themselves may disagree. Those cases will be pursued by people who have a desire to obstruct the freedom of expression that the Minister and I are at one in seeking to preserve.

Mr. Mellor: The requirement on broadcasters today is that they should adhere to due impartiality on matters of current industrial and political controversy. That is almost exactly the same as the rule that they will face under the Bill. As far as I am aware, that requirement has not been the subject of frequent legal challenges in the past 40 years, and I doubt that it will be during the next 40. The substantive law, the requirement to observe due impartiality, is precisely the same in the Bill as it is in today's law.

Mr. Maclennan: If we were debating precisely the same provisions as the substantive law set out in the 1954 Act I do not imagine that we would have had a long debate or any debate. The Minister knows that the Government are imposing upon the ITC an obligation to prepare a code with specific, new, substantive requirements. That code


will create uncertainty and that uncertainty will cause problems for broadcasters and make the mischief of which I complain.
We are fortunate to have television and radio stations that are not afraid to make controversial programmes. Broadcasters are entitled to put out such programmes. Hon. Members have already mentioned Harold Pinter's programme on Nicaragua, and what about Norman Stone on Poland? Those programmes contain different views held by very different individuals on important current events. No one believes that the views expressed are those of the broadcaster—clearly they are the views of those participating in the programme. That very independence is at risk. Companies competing in an ever-hostile commercial climate will be frightened of making such programmes if there is a risk of organisations such as the Freedom Association—there are plenty of such well-heeled organisations—taking those companies to court.
I do not regard the opinion of any single lawyer on this matter as conclusive. It is the multiplicity of views that have been expressed by lawyers that could be regarded as giving rise to concern. There is no doubt that the balance of legal opinion on this is in line with that expressed by Lord Goodman, to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred. He believes that it will create a legal picnic. We managed at an earlier stage of the Bill to persuade the Minister of the undesirability of that in the context of the quality threshold. He showed himself then to be sensitive to the undesirability of dragging these matters, which should be handled by the regulators, to the regulation of the courts, or to the establishment of precedents with one test case after another. They will not all follow in line, for the sort of subject matter that could be challenged, particularly in considering whether a matter is major, as required by the measure, will be extremely difficult.
5.30 pm
The Minister has won his spurs in the House. Indeed, he has won recognition in the Government, in view of his elevation to his important post, as a result of the manner in which he handled the Bill, listened to opinion and weighed it up. He did not favour a particular view but weighed the argument.
The argument deployed in the other place in favour of the clause as drafted was of the strength of gossamer. If the Minister has any scope for manoeuvre, I urge him to drop this worthless and dangerous clause. The previous three chairmen of the IBA wrote a powerful letter toThe Times warning of the dangers of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. I read with interest what Mr. Glyn Mathias, an experienced programme maker and broadcaster for ITN, and a man known to most of us, said on the subject. He commented:
The application of due impartiality can vary depending on the number of differing views on any one issue. It is rarely just a question of a right-wing view versus a left-wing view. The result of the amendment will be to neuter the news and to impede our ability to cover events as we have in the past.
Coming from a man such as Glyn Mathias, that is serious, for he weighs his words with care.
I have also paid attention to what has been said by the IBA and the shadow ITC. They were not persuaded of the

need for what is proposed by anything the Minister or anyone else said. On 3 July they issued a briefing on the question of impartiality in which they said:
In our view, the Bill as drafted offers appropriate safeguards for impartiality.
That is why there was no debate on the issue on Report and why there was no serious lengthy debate about impartiality in Committee, for we are united in recognising that impartiality is the bedrock of television and we are satisfied that it has been adequately secured in the past.
I conclude with an appeal not in my words but in the words of a leader writer inThe Daily Telegraph. Perhaps it was written by Mr. Max Hastings, who in matters of freedom is a voice to be listened to. I should not attribute it to him because I cannot be certain that he wrote it, but the writer stated:
A classic test of any government is how far it seeks superintendence over matters left to good sense. The amendment … takes intervention well beyond what should be acceptable to Conservatives.
I hope that Conservative Members will heed that and will vote tonight with my hon. Friends and Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) on a highly entertaining speech. I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will forgive me if I do not express the same congratulations on his remarks. My hon. Friend achieved his laughs, not for the first time, at the expense of some of his colleagues. He complained that he was not paid for his performance here this afternoon. Perhaps he should look for a forum where he will be suitably rewarded, because he is assuredly good enough to be paid. I fear that he will never need to worry about the ITC getting at him about being partial or biased over a major matter.
I strongly support the amendments on impartiality, particularly No. 22. The broadcasters have only themselves to blame for the amendments. I suggest that the original amendments in the other place were introduced in frustration at the arrogance of a minority of broadcasters, in the ITV companies and in the BBC, who have abused their positions of influence by producing programmes that peddle their political viewpoints——

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Name them.

Mr. Riddick: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall refer to a few programmes.
The hysterical response to the impartiality amendments has brought no credit to some of the broadcasters concerned. Many of their claims have been highly misleading, while some have been merely abusive. Michael Grade, chief executive of Channel 4, said that Tory Members of Parliament were employing "McCarthyite tactics" and claimed that
this campaigning has been orchestrated by a small right-wing lobby.
Was he referring to Lord Wyatt, to the Media Monitoring Unit, to the Freedom Association or to the 113 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion? I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot that they are not all Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will be pleased to hear that they include a Liberal, and there are a few Ulster Unionists. At any rate,


the 113 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion represent not a small but a substantial lobby that is not without influence.
The most misleading claim that broadcasters have made is that the amendments introduce a new concept into broadcasting law. That is not true, and I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not try to put forward that argument.
Due impartiality has been a requirement since the 1950s, and the requirement in the Bill referring to due impartiality is word for word the same as the requirement for due impartiality in the Broadcasting Act 1981. In other words, due impartiality is not a new concept.
The wording is specific, saying that due impartiality must be achieved on matters of industrial and political concern and that that balance should be achieved within a series. Indeed, the IBA has incorporated the requirement to balance over a series in its guidelines.
The trouble is that the broadcasters have been ignoring those requirements and the IBA has proved itself unable or unwilling to enforce its own rules. That is why the amendments are necessary and why it is important that the basic outlines of what is meant by due impartiality, how it is to be achieved and the time limits within which balancing programmes are to be shown should be clearly spelt out in the Bill. That way, there can be no misunderstanding or ignoring of the impartiality rules by broadcasters and the ITC will not simply be able to turn a blind eye to abuses. The forces of law will he solidly behind the new ITC code.
There is no doubt that there has been a clear flouting of existing impartiality rules. In some cases that can be put down to sheer ignorance on the part of the broadcasters. I talked to some broadcasters who did not realise that they had a responsibility to be impartial in the way that they presented things. They simply were not aware of the current state of the law.

Mr. Corbett: Name them.

Mr. Riddick: I have talked to individual broadcasters—for example, people who have interviewed me have been unaware of such matters. However, the majority of cases in which the impartiality rules have been flouted have been deliberate.
Recently, there was a highly revealing article inThe Guardian. It was written by Paul Bonner, the founder programme controller at Channel 4 and now the director of programme planning at the ITV Association. He wrote quite openly:
to do justice to difficult and unpopular arguments has meant that balance might only be reached in terms of two or three years, rather than within any series.
He says that balance can be achieved over two or three years, which may be all very well for him. But the law says that balance should be achieved over a series. He is clearly flouting that and seems to be doing so with impunity.
In a radio discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), Mr. Michael Grade, to whom I have already referred, actually admitted that "Oh Superman", a highly partisan and one-sided programme attacking American foreign policy and presented by Harold Pinter, was not balanced or impartial. He said that a balance to the programme was provided in a "Right to Reply" programme by an unknown individual, who was given two or three minutes to put the counter argument.
One might say, "So what—it does not matter." But the current law—the Broadcasting Act 1981—states that impartiality must be achieved.
There is proof elsewhere that some television series are one-sided and unbalanced. I make no apology for referring to the Media Monitoring Unit, which has shown that some television series, notably "World in Action" and "Open Space", are consistently biased to the left.

Mr. Corbett: Give an example.

Mr. Riddick: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give an example. I have mentioned "World in Action" and "Open Space". I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman has actually taken the trouble to read any of the material produced by the Media Monitoring Unit. Were he to have done so, he would have seen clearly to which specific programmes the unit was referring.
Some people might say that Tories and right-wing people would have a go at "Panorama". It is interesting that the last report by the Media Monitoring Unit found that the "Panorama" programme's output during the series in question was extremely balanced and there was little bias towards either left or right.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend think that the reason why the "Panorama" programme was found to be balanced was that it had faced a couple of libel actions successfully brought by hon. Members?

Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, but there is another issue. My hon. Friend knows only too well the difficulties of taking legal action against broadcasters. We have heard that it will be a lawyers' paradise, that they will have a field day and will be taking the television companies to court every five minutes. That is absolute nonsense. For a start, the amendments will not result in that, but even if they were to make litigation easier, the cost of taking such legal action is prohibitive. Therefore, to suggest that the amendments will produce much more litigation is absolute nonsense.
I am not just concerned about party political bias: I am equally worried about a more general anti-free market., anti-big business, anti-capitalism and pro-Government: intervention approach that seems to pervade so much of British broadcasting.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example? I hate to interrupt this tide of nonsense. Will he give us examples of producers, directors and programmes that have shown the malevolence, bias and lack of impartiality of which he accuses them all?

Mr. Riddick: I have no intention of starting to name. lots of names.
I have been involved in a television programme made by one of the respectable current affairs teams, which was quite clearly biased. When I met the programme's producer and presenter it was interesting to find that they quite clearly had a specific view about the programme that they were making.

Mr. Corbett: Like the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Riddick: Yes, of course it was like me. The reason why I was being interviewed was that I had a certain view.


I should have thought that producers and presenters would be interested in presenting programmes that were balanced and impartial.

Mr. Hattersley: I would hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman said it, but he did so twice, so I must ask him the question again. His complaint is that producers have a specific view. Does he believe that television programmes should or could possibly be made without the producers having a specific view or did he just make a couple of slips of the tongue?

Mr. Riddick: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever, but the producers' and presenters' views should not be peddled in the programmes that they make. Of course, everyone has a perfect right to a view, but they should attempt to present a balanced approach in the programmes that they make.
One radio programme that I regularly listen to is a classic example of the sort of thing that we get. It is "Start the Week" on Radio 4 on Monday mornings, presented by Melvyn Bragg—[Interruption.] That programme is one of the more notable but subtle exponents of the sort of thing about which I have been talking—[Laughter.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Barracking from sedentary positions does nothing to improve the quality of debate in the House.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members have been talking about intolerance. They are demonstrating enormous intolerance simply because I am putting a counter view.
One of the interesting comments made in the debate in the Lords on Monday was made by Lord Annan, a respected commentator on broadcasting matters who chaired the Committee on the future of broadcasting 13 years ago. In Monday's debate he said:
Two distinguished broadcasters in current affairs on television told us that there ran through the output a strain that was anti-establishment, anti-institution, anti-free enterprise and anti-American."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1990; Vol. 522, c. 1160.]
I fear that that strain has not entirely disappeared.
The other day, Barbara Amiel, writing inThe Times under the rather extraordinary headline
Bias makes for better television",
said:
Good documentary makers almost always have a point of view, and in my 20 years of working in the medium I found few who could be said to have sound Tory views.
That does not prove anything, but it suggests that a large number of people working in the media have a left-wing perspective on life. I do not object to that, but I object when they peddle their left-wing views in the programmes that they make.
Most hon. Members will have heard of Christopher Dunkley, the respected television reporter of theFinancial Times. Back in July he questioned why the BBC was so enthusiastically preaching one point of view on environmental matters. He went on to ask:
When does the BBC intend to give equal time to other political attitudes on the environment?
So, several people are worried about what is going on in television. There is clear evidence of bias in certain radio programmes on the BBC——

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Would it be possible to give a specific example from "Start the Week", because I understand that it is enjoyed by a large audience of all sorts of people, including large numbers of bourgeois ladies whose favourite subversive habit is flower arranging?

Mr. Riddick: As it happens, it is my misfortune to listen to "Start the Week" most mornings on my way to the station. The other day my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was on the programme talking about bias on television. It was interesting to hear how Mr. Bragg interrupted my hon. Friend far more than his other guests—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend is perfectly capable of looking after herself, but it was clear that Mr. Bragg thoroughly disapproved of what she was saying and made sure that the other point of view was put—and that is not always his practice.
For as long as broadcasting plays such a vital and integral role in the British way of life, due impartiality will be a key component of it. I congratulate all who are responsible for these amendments, in this House, the other House and outside Parliament, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister on coming forward with the amendments. I look forward to the day when similar impartiality requirements apply to the BBC, but in the meantime I am happy to support the Lords amendments.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I thoroughly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), but I am a bit worried because he was not nearly as funny as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
When I became a young councillor, I joined a local authority in Devon, which was wholly controlled by so-called independents. One of the first things that I was told was that they had no politics there: they were all above that sort of thing. I discovered that that meant, "We do not have any Labour party politics." All the councillors were happily Conservative and had always voted for and propagated Conservative ideas on the council.
Listening to the hon. Member for Colne Valley I had a tremendous sensation of deja vu. Here is a party which happily and consistently supports newspapers which quite a few people would think had about as much independence of view and lack of bias as Mrs. Whitehouse; yet that party claims that the journalists who work in broadcasting are not to be trusted to be independent.
But the Lords amendment is rather different. Those of us who sat through the Committee and watched the Minister for the Arts reshaping the legislation, so that it became by the end completely different from what had been intended by the people who wrote the line on the back of the envelope on which it was based, know that the fact that he has now had to give way at this very late stage to an amendment as bigoted, unimaginative and stupid as this one must show that he is acting on the instructions of his mistress.
The House should realise that the amendment encapsulates a dangerous attack on freedom of speech. I am a very partial person, so I believe strongly in impartiality. All my life, I have had a definite view on a number of subjects about which I have not hesitated to express my opinions, but I accept the right of others to disagree with me, publicly and in writing. I expect people


to have a contrary point of view and to express it, and I believe that our broadcasting would assume a much sadder and more dangerous form if we changed this set of values.
Democracy depends on the ability of people who have a vote to listen to differing points of view. Why do we offer ourselves for election if we do not believe in the right of every person in the country to listen to differing points of view? Why do we protect so strongly the privileges of the House of Commons which allow us openly to attack other institutions and ideas? It is because we believe in the right of free speech——

Mr. Gale: rose——

Mrs. Dunwoody: I want to develop my idea a little further. I heard the hon. Gentleman express his views at considerable length in Committee, and learned there of his expertise in "Blue Peter".
It is vital that we understand that there must be diversity and the expression of a wide variety of views in broadcasting. We need to maintain codes of control, in the sense that we expect people to present balanced views. All of us, having seen programmes with which we disagree, demand some sort of balance for the other point of view; but we who are not involved in broadcasting must not sit down and draw up rigid rules which appear to tell the broadcasters they are not to be trusted to do their own jobs responsibly.
It is noticeable that we do not do this with newspapers. We allow journalists who work on newspapers to be as bigoted, ignorant and lazy about doing their research as they want to be—and from time to time they are helped by people who are as bigoted as they are——

Mrs. Edwina Currie: (Derbyshire, South: As a totally bigoted journalist in my other life, I put it to the hon. Lady that there are nevertheless hon. Members who think that the Lords amendment as it stands is worth having; that there are problems; and that it is appropriate and right that broadcasters be reminded of their duties.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I have no objection to broadcasters being reminded of their duties. That is the responsibility of those to whom we have given powers under the Bill to do precisely that. Why did the Government come here with a Bill that gave them those powers? Why do we have codes of conduct in existing broadcasting legislation? The Government gave those powers not because they thought it amusing to do so but because they expect those charged with them to carry out their duties. Those who have any doubt about the reasoning behind the amendment should listen carefully to the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Gentleman's one distinction is that he actually says what many Conservatives believe but are much too tactful and clever to put into words.
I think that only a small number of Conservative Members will vote against the amendment, although the commitment of Conservatives to freedom of speech is no less than the commitment of some Opposition Members. If the amendment is accepted, we shall be underlining not the need for impartiality but a call for bigotry, for political control by a Government who feel themselves under attack and who want to restrict the opportunities for broadcasters to put different points of view before the public. That is a dangerous form of paranoia and in the final analysis it is extremely restrictive.
6 pm
I frequently argue with the broadcasting authorities and often wish that they would show greater impartiality in their handling of some subjects. But I reserve my right to go on protesting to them through their existing machinery, raising points on which I think they are wrong and winning or losing my case on the basis of my evidence. I do not accept and hon. Members should never accept a deliberate, bigoted, small-minded and unacceptable attempt to restrict the freedom of broadcasters to produce open debate. Such debate is the life-blood of democracy, and for 10 years the Government have sought to restrict it. They must not be allowed to get away with it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I was always schooled to believe not to add to a construction anything that would not improve it. That has legislative wisdom, which is why I am slightly puzzled because the burden of the argument advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State was that the Lords amendments add nothing to the Bill. Under questioning, that was expressed once or twice. Why are we adding something that is unnecessary? I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend would look more carefully at that proposition, because some people suspect that the amendments add something that the Minister does not want. My right hon. and learned Friend would have been better advised to stand by his original position that the Bill had integrity as it was and that any additional information added by the clause was superfluous. That suspicion, that contesting of the proposition, means that he may find that he has agreed to something that he does not want.
The Minister was right to say that some of us do not like the impartiality rules. That is an important element in the argument. It is wholly appropriate that there should be an impartiality rule when the public fund, effectively through taxation, the licence fee, a public service broadcasting system. I had hoped that, in the advancement of broadcasting, we were moving to sufficient diversity so that competing views and ideas in the system were such that we did not have to worry about each jot and particular of everyone's view.
The past 11 years have unhappily concentrated our minds on the history of broadcasting. At one time, presses were licensed because we feared that their contrary views might undermine good government. We used to license the theatre and some productions there, because we feared that they might be insidious and seditious. The remarkable stability of this country over three centuries does not, by and large, bear that out by contrast with the experience of other countries. I thought that, by getting rid of the Lord Chamberlain, we had made a great leap forward.
As a Conservative, I do not like the concept that one man's views on a programme or what I should read or see are better than my own ability to judge. In amendments such as the one we are discussing, the detailing is a manifestation of the old-fashioned nanny state, which says that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and I and other hon. Members are not able as free citizens to say, "This is nonsense." It is like saying that we cannot judge, and that, because we are unable to make a judgment ourselves, specious bodies of the great and good have to be set up to do it for us. As I say, I thought that we had got rid of the Lord Chamberlain and his remit for the theatre. However, we now have Lord Rees-Mogg who has a better


view on these matters than we because he is judged by the Government somehow to sum up the nation's propriety in these affairs.
My hon. Friends have expressed agitation about how awful and frightful some programmes are. I agree that some are motivated and some are particular, but the smashing thing about this country is that this clash of ideas is what we have always been about. We have advanced, and the freedom of speech and expression, which mean that I and my hon. Friends may be particular, are vital.
There is a fear of broadcasting through television. We are going back to the old licensing of the presses. It is said that there are too few of them and that, if they fall into the wrong hands, our dull electorate—Mrs. Smith of Aldridge or Mrs. Brown from somewhere else—will be incapable of recognising a prejudiced programme. Wise dissertations in the newspapers argue that visual images are somehow so captivating to our intelligence that they render us incapable of saying that something is wrong.
I advance my next argument because it is relevant. We banned the direct broadcasting of members of certain organisations in Northern Ireland. Among other things, that was a denial of people's right to hear even the unacceptable and it is therefore a denial of our freedoms. I have been trying to say for a couple of years that my party above all ought to be mindful of the fact that we are strong and free. I said that in the debate on the IRA. As free citizens in a free country, we are the final arbiters.
That may be seen as a slight digression, so I shall return to the proposition advanced by the Minister. The amendment adds nothing and should therefore be dropped. The Minister has secured that which he and other hon. Members think appropriate. It is over the top, and the Bill as it was before it went to the House of Lords should be allowed to stand. We should say that the amendment is unnecessary and drop it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is a remarkable Member of Parliament. On many issues, bucking the party system—which also happens on our side—enlightens a subject. The benefit of this place is not the two sides of the House, although that is necessary to get business through. It is that there are hon. Members in all parts of the House who buck the system and put forward their own ideas. I should like to see that inside and outside the House. I have not participated in debates on the Bill but, like the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I should like to ask what the amendments are about. I have read reports of the debates and read about proceedings in the Lords.
The Minister has told us that the amendment will not make a big change. A problem arose from an early-day motion signed by 100 people and by some people in the other place with ideas about the problems, especially with independent companies. It was therefore thought that a little should be done to make those people feel that the subject was important when in fact it is not. However "better" it is than the original idea, there are some problems that I should like to investigate. I shall discuss partiality and impartiality and the legal challenge. It is a long time since I was Home Secretary but I should like to

look at the problems that a Home Secretary might face if a legal challenge, or judicial review, were taken out. Judicial review seems to be becoming more common.
I shall look first at impartiality. People think that the Home Office runs broadcasting—which was certainly not the case when I was Home Secretary and I hope that it is not the case now—and on a controversial subject half the letters that used to pour in were in favour and half were against. On another subject, a different half might be in favour and another half against. It is surprising how subjective are the views of those who want particular programmes.
What is impartial? There is a newspaper in Fermanagh, Northern Ireland, calledThe Impartial Reporter. That is a curious use of the word "impartial", but perhaps it is the typical use of the word. People believe that they are impartial even when they are partial. For example, I shall be watching the televisoion on Saturday when the British rugby league team are playing the Australians. Unfortunately, I cannot go to the game. I hope that the commentators will be very partial because that is what I want. It does not matter because the Australian commentators will also be partial. I am only sad that I shall not be there.
Of course, I am not saying that all is well with British broadcasting. The way in which the Home Office used to run it—I hope that it still is running it—was correct. I remember a member of the Cabinet berating the BBC and threatening it with a reduction in its licence if it continued to behave in a certain way. I wrote to all my colleagues saying that it was neither their business nor mine. I said that if any individual member of the Cabinet felt strongly about any matter, he should write and complain as an individual, as large numbers of people used to do. Broadcasting is not under the control of the Government, the Cabinet or the House of Commons, and nor should it be. That does not mean that I do not have complaints about the BBC, but there is a code of practice for the BBC as well as for the IBA.
Of course, the BBC makes mistakes. I wrote to Sir Ian Trethowan at the time of Airey Neave's death. In the interests of impartiality, the BBC interviewed someone who said that his organisation had killed Airey Neave. In my letter—which appears in print in my book—I said:
As a minister, I never attempted to dictate or interfere in BBC programmes. Indeed, it is my view that the BBC has a duty to allow a wide spectrum of political opinions to be voiced. Ideas and opinions will never subvert our society.
But I argued that it was a grave error of judgment to interview that man at that time. I was entitled to my view, but it did not mean that I wanted to control what the BBC was doing.
At the time of the Ulster workers' strike—this is an important point that should have been picked up before—Lord Fitt, then a Northern Ireland politician, came to me in high dudgeon and said that the BBC was the voice of the loyalist paramilitaries. He called the BBC "Radio Free Belfast", and said that it was the mouthpiece of the organisers of the Ulster workers' strike. The BBC argued that it required the declaration of an emergency to make it act in a different way. It does not worry me that the existing system does not mean impartiality in the true sense because it entitles me to complain if I wish to do so.
Despite all the weaknesses of the BBC and the IBA, I believe in the present system and in the distancing of Ministers and the House of Commons from the running of


broadcasting. It is vital that that should be so. That is why I am against a Ministry of Broadcasting. Broadcasting is better off under the Home Office because it pays so little attention to it. Indeed, it is vital that it does not. Imagine a Minister of Broadcasting going to his office every day, taking his coat off and saying, "I run broadcasting; it is my fiefdom." That would be wrong. Just imagine what would happen if broadcasting was put under the control of the Department of Trade and Industry because it controls the spectrum, or something like that. Please let us not do that.
Currently, it is left to the Home Secretary, through the Queen and others, to appoint the governor and the members of the board of the BBC. It should be possible not to appoint supporters of the Government in power. The only time that I was in a position to appoint a chairman of the BBC, I rang Edward Boyle and offered him the post. He had been a Conservative Minister, but I had the highest admiration for him. He declined, and one reason that he gave was that he loved his job at the University of Leeds. What I did not know was that he was dying. The appointment of chairmen or governors should be done out of respect for their intelligence and ability, not because of party support. That might not be perfect, but it is important to keep a distance. The code of practice in the Bill is an interference in freedom.
6.15 pm
How will the legal aspects affect the Government? I recognise the Minister's experience as a lawyer; he said that there would be no problem and that the Government would not end up in the courts. However, Lord Boston—who is the chairman of Television South, a former Minister with responsibility for broadcasting when I was Home Secretary, and a Queen's counsel—in another place called in aid legal opinion. Indeed, he dismissed legal opinion that I would not have lightly dismissed when I was Home Secretary. For example, he called in aid Mr. Anthony Scrivener, an eminent silk, who questioned the replacement of the words "make provision" by "take account of". He said that it was an improvement, but not a matter of great significance. He also referred to the words "major matters" replacing "individual issues". One person's major matter is another's minor matter. Lord Boston also quoted Lord Goodman, another eminent lawyer, who took a different view from that of the Minister.

Mr. Mellor: If the right hon. Gentleman had been advised by his lawyers and by the lawyers to the regulatory body that this was not a lawyer's picnic, he might have felt the same degree of fortitude that I feel when facing such comments. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been present when I said earlier that, although it has been suggested that the term "major matters" would lead to difficulty, in fact for 40 years the law has contained the word "matters", which would be just as likely to lead to difficulties. If someone wished to make a fuss about "major matters", he would be as likely to make a fuss about "matters". However, there has been no litigation in that respect during those 40 years. Many of the lawyers' arguments appear to be arguments against the original proposition, not the amendment.

Mr. Rees: Why put it in the Bill? The BBC and the IBA have had codes of practice for many years, but they are not in the Bill. Eminent lawyers take a different view from the Minister. He argues that there have been no court cases,

but I warrant that there will be—especially in view of the strong views expressed by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and others. Those who wanted change have been conned. The Government believe that they are adopting a policy of damage limitation, but they are wrong.
There should not be the slightest question of broadcasting being under the control of the Government or Parliament. Let us have a statute for the ITC and a charter for the BBC and appoint the right sort of people as governors. Of course, mistakes are made, but I am proud of the BBC and the IBA none the less. We have the best broadcasting system in the world. It is not often that we praise anything in this country. In this place, we are here to run things down; to us, everything is wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Speak for yourselves.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has not been here long enough. When he comes to sit on the Opposition Benches, he will say that whatever the Labour Government do is wrong.

Mr. Tony Banks: He will not be here.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman will not be here. If that is the case, we shall all be happy.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman should not confuse criticism of a Labour Government with criticism of the country. We do not run this country down. That is the prerogative of Labour Members.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman will never be a Minister at the Home Office and he will never have anything to do with broadcasting. He is typical of the sort of man who wants thought control and who believes thatThe Sun is the best newspaper in the world. I get angry about this talk of the country and political parties. It explains why politicians are held in such low esteem.
Do not put politicians in charge of broadcasting because that is wrong. The Government have made a mistake. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has it right. This country must be free, even if that involves making mistakes from time to time.
This is a silly Bill. We shall lose tonight, because that is the way things are, but it will be a sad day for broadcasting when we do.

Mr. Gale: In introducing the amendment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Arts said that the 1954 Act makes provision for due impartiality. He told the House that those of us who served on the Committee felt that that provision was probably adequate and that he would probably have settled for that.
Those in the other place felt otherwise and they chose to table an amendment that would place greater emphasis on impartiality. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that those in the other place did not want the amendment. If they had not wanted it, presumably they would not have voted it through by a two to one majority. If they had chosen to seek to defeat it, presumably there would have been more than 100 or so Labour peers present.
Sometimes this House and the other place are not entirely in touch with public opinion. It is interesting to note that, when the Lords defeat a Government measure, the Opposition say how wise they are.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gale: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish, I shall, of course, give way. As he knows, I have a high regard for the comments that he has made throughout our proceedings on the Bill. When the Lords introduce an amendment that none of us has discussed in Committee or on Report, it is suddenly wrong.

Mr. Maclennan: I always listen to the hon. Gentleman with interest because of his knowledge of broadcasting. He did not see fit to represent the so-called views of the public, as embodied in the amendment, at any stage in the Bill's proceedings. I imagine that, as a man interested in broadcasting, he is usually very much in touch with public opinion. Why was he not on this occasion?

Mr. Gale: I am perfectly prepared to concede that, on occasion, other people have better ideas than me. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister conceded exactly that this evening. I think that it has been generally accepted that, since the Bill entered its Committee stage, it has been improved considerably following non-partisan discussion. The hon. Gentleman contributed a considerable amount to that process, as did many other Opposition Members. Indeed, I meant to start my speech by saying how very much those of us on the Back Benches who served on the Committee will miss the amusing wisdom of Norman Buchan, who played such an important part in our proceedings. Opposition Members contributed a great deal, but none of us in the House has a monopoly of wisdom, and I genuinely believe that, in this case, their Lordships have brought to our attention a matter that we should have considered earlier.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that the amendment represented an effort to intimidate and that, if it reached the statute book, the programmes that would result would be bland and anodyne. I do not believe that. The general public want, and generally believe that they get, and generally do get, impartial programming. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that she wanted to see and hear both sides of the argument. That is what impartiality is about and the amendment has been drafted precisely to achieve that end: it represents a genuine and fair attempt to write impartiality into the Bill in terms that most reasonable people will be able to understand.
I am, by trade, a journalist and a broadcaster, and I find nothing frightening about the amendment. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, I used to make "Blue Peter," and I find no shame in that. But I spent two thirds of my career with the BBC making current affairs programmes. People of all political views were involved in making the programmes, but it was our proud boast then that our personal political opinions did not interfere in our programme making.

Mr. Corbett: What, even on "Blue Peter"?

Mr. Gale: People say that the old jokes are the best, but although I am in favour of the environment and recycling, I think that it would be nice to hear a new joke from time to time.
The amendment is being treated by some as an attack on freedom of information. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has been a staunch defender of freedom of information, introduced the IRA argument. As a current affairs producer and director, I shared with my colleagues of whatever political persuasion the clear understanding that we should never give air time to terrorists or convicted criminals. It was only as a result of the breakdown of that understanding among broadcasters that the Government found it necessary to impose that regulation. Undoubtedly, the best form of regulation is self-regulation.
I see no cause for fear in the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) will be seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that he will put another point of view. My hon. Friend and I do not always agree. Sometimes my post is misdirected to him and he courteously forwards it, and sometimes it is the other way round, so we know each other's constituents' views. We know that, out there, there are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned about the standards of broadcasting and about impartiality. They are not only Conservative supporters; there are most certainly Labour supporters among them.
The public want security. They want to feel that, broadly speaking, what they see on the screen—over a reasonable period—is balanced. That is what their Lordships have sought to write into the Bill. They had three attempts at it before getting it right. That, in itself, says a lot for the way in which that House works. The amendment was not forced through the other place in an imperfect form. Their Lordships considered it as they often consider matters—perhaps with greater wisdom and depth than we do in this place. I think that they got it right and I see nothing whatever to fear from the amendment.
I hope and believe that the House will accept that, in this instance, the other place has made a significant contribution to freedom and democracy in broadcasting. One side will never be impartial, fair and democratic. The public want the opportunity generally, consistently and all the time to hear both sides of the argument. That is what the amendment would ensure and I hope that, on consideration, hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel able to support it.

Mr. Tony Banks: I also pay tribute to our dear, late colleague, Norman Buchan; one of the few poet politicians that we have—or had—in this country. Opposition Members will miss him greatly, and I know that he will be missed by many Conservative Members who criticised him in the past, but who always recognised the sincerity of his views.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) on his skilfully crafted vignette. I know that we shall be reading about it for the next six months in the various publications that he writes for. He was able to speak with all the freedom of a man never likely to be tempted by political office.
6.30 pm
The code of practice for broadcasting put before us by the Lords has all the hallmarks of the Prime Minister's paranoia—she who actually believes that any form of opposition or criticism of her or her Government's policies is tantamount to treason. I am afraid that she is supported by many intolerant people on the Conservative Benches.
The code would have been unacceptable to me wherever it had originated, and whoever initiated it. Even if it had come from the Minister for the Arts—the most acceptable face of Tory extremism on the Front Bench today—-I should have opposed it. The fact that its genesis was in the vile and bilious views of that odious bigot Lord Wyatt makes it doubly repellant. As far as I can tell, he wants the unrestricted freedom to write what he wants in a newspaper such as theNews of the World, and to restrict broadcasters from making programmes with which he happens to disagree. What hypocrisy that amounts to. What double standards.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is not being altogether fair to Lord Wyatt because 40 years ago he was on the extreme left and now he is on the extreme right. Surely that demonstrates due impartiality.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul. Dean): Order. Before the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) deals with that, I am sure that he will recognise, on reflection, that we should refer to members of the other place with some respect.

Mr. Banks: It is very difficult to have any respect for Lord Wyatt, to be perfectly honest, and I am not prepared to accord him any. I shall not mention him again—that is the easiest way in which to pay him any respect. Anyone who can write the sort of article that he writes in theNews of the World does not deserve serious consideration when he expresses views about impartiality in broadcasting, and it is as simple as that. He wants to turn broadcasters and broadcasting into as unbiased a medium as theNews of the World or The Sun.
When the Minister for the Arts was speaking about the code of practice, he said that there was no impartiality in the written word. That is certainly true of the extreme right-wing bias of our great national newspapers. Surely, if the written word is central to and underpins the democratic process, as so many journalists constantly tell us, we should require balance from the written word, from journalists and from newspapers. We already require balance from broadcasters, through the IBA and the charter. Balance is written into that, and there are statutory rights and requirements with regard to it.
What is so unsatisfactory about the present situation? We should like to see a statutory right of reply as regards the written word, but when that case has been argued, the Government and journalists have always rebutted it. We are asking broadcasters to go much further than journalists. As I have said, broadcasters already impose upon themselves, and adhere to, an acceptable balance. The public do not require us to change the rules as they currently apply to broadcasting.

Mrs. Currie: rose——

Mr. Banks: I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady so that she can get a story to use in her next newspaper article.

Mrs. Currie: Where, in the hon. Gentleman's paeori of praise for balance and in his attitude to newspapers, lies the refusal by the Leader of the Opposition to talk toThe Times, or the refusal by Derbyshire county council and other council leaders to put advertisements inThe Times Educational Supplement because of articles that appear inThe Sunday Times? What about the views of a headmaster—who happens to be a Labour councillor in east Staffordshire—who believes that all satellite television dishes should be banned, along withThe Sun?

Mr. Banks: I certainly do not think that the anecdotal approach to politics, which the hon. Lady specialises in, is the way to treat the matter at a serious level, which is how one would expect it to be treated.
Any hon. Member is entitled to say that he or she does not wish to speak to a particular newspaper. Even if an Opposition Member told some newspapers everything—the whole truth—they would never print it, because it is the function of a number of newspapers to do the dirt on the Labour party. I remember talking to a journalist from theDaily Mail whose specific instructions had been to do the dirt on the Labour party. If an Opposition Member does not want to talk to a newspaper, surely that is his or her right.
I do not agree with banning newspapers from libraries, which means that I do not agree with some of the decisions taken in local government, by councils controlled by the Labour party. The hon. Lady knows that because of our exchanges in Committee. There is no way in which she can catch me out in such an obvious and predictable fashion.
I am worried that, when the justification for the code was advanced in another place, it was said that broadcasting existed as a protective monopoly. Up to 30 channels can be obtained by people with cable television. That does not seem to me to be a definition of a monopoly. If a programme on one channel puts a view that another one disagrees with, or if it has its facts wrong, there is ample opportunity for another television station to put it right. Newspapers do that from time to time when they attack each other.
If the code is passed, it will be largely unenforceable, but that is not its real danger, and we should not reject it merely because of that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) got it right: the code is there to intimidate broadcasters. It will result in self-censorship, because broadcasters will be so worried about what might happen that they simply will not make certain programmes, on the ground that it could get them into difficulties with the authorities. It is the self-censorship element of the code that worries me most.
To so many Tory politicians, impartiality merely means agreeing with their views. In recent months and years broadcasters have embarrassed the Government. That is one of their prime functions.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) knows about the broadcasters' ability to criticise Government and call Ministers to account. It might detract from Ministers' dignity of office, but, frankly, that is what the public expect broadcasters and journalists to do. Unfortunately, it is a lamentable fact that few journalists and broadcasters are prepared to do that today. There is far too much deference given to Ministers by the broadcasters whom I listen to on the radio or the journalists whose articles I read in the newspapers.
The code is part of a long-running campaign by Conservative Members against broadcasters and against the BBC in particular. The people have made no demands for such a code to be imposed upon broadcasters. When it is only the politicians who are complaining, I am convinced that they have got it totally wrong. If I had received a large number of letters telling me that there is bias in broadcasting and giving me details, I might be more concerned. I have received no letters to argue that case. I have received dozens of complaints in letters—I am sure that many other hon. Members have, too—from people with the opposite point of view. They are worried about the implications of the code and of the Bill in general.
The code and the proposals in the Bill come from a dangerously authoritarian Government, led by an intolerant Prime Minister, who uses the language of freedom while always acting to limit it. I greatly welcome the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook that when he is Home Secretary the code will be repealed. I am sorry that the Minister for the Arts supports it.

Mr. George Walden: Although I do not necessarily share some of the darker insinuations about repression that have been made by some Opposition Members, it is legitimate for certain Conservative Members to be tentatively puzzled, to put it mildly, about why we have got to where we are tonight. In the past few months, we have moved from the position where we did not feel it necessary to legislate further on these matters to the position where we were going to legislate on individual issues, and then to the position where we would legislate on major matters. In a short time we have moved from the non-defined to the over-defined and then to the ill-defined. We have moved from arm's length to hands on and then to one hand on. At the very least, that suggests uncertainty of intent.
When Members on both sides of the House mention the possibility of litigation, it reminds me of a phrase that featured in the Lords debate. A legal expert from Oxford was quoted as having said that the phrase "major matters" was
elusive of meaning and pregnant with ambiguity.
That sounds like the House debating earlier this week economic and monetary union.
Leaving that aside, that seems to me, as a non-lawyer listening to lawyers—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and lawyers in another place—to be a worrying prospect. I believe that, on television, there is bias of four kinds. The first sort, which occasionally I think that I see with my slightly biased eye, is blatant anti-Tory bias. But what do I say to myself? I say, "I can rely, above all else, on my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to act not only as a bias detector but also as a bias corrector in his own right."
I have to remind myself also that I read studies which show that large numbers of people in the country believe that much of the television output is biased in favour of the Tory party. I need also to take note of the stark, simple fact that, although this medium is caricatured as a thoroughgoing anti-Tory medium, and although it is alleged to have enormous influence over people's opinions, the Conservative party keeps winning elections. Although,

therefore, I see aspects of anti-Tory bias, and sometimes what seem to be blatant examples of anti-Tory bias, on television, I try to put them into a common-sense context.
The second sort of bias that we see on television is anti-Government bias—indeed, anti-any-old-Government bias. What that means is simple: that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health hands out another few million or billion pounds, television will show a picture of someone on a long waiting list who needs an operation. I can guarantee that, if ever the Opposition come to power, they will not solve the waiting list problem in a hurry and that television will do a programme saying, "You said six months ago that you were going to solve the problem, but here is the same person in the same queue." There is nothing that one can do about that second form of bias. Moreover, if one thinks about it, it is a healthy form of bias.
The third form of bias that I see, according to my own eye, is cultural bias. There is not a great deal that we can do about it, but I believe that it is a damaging bias. I am political about it. As a whole, the BBC is a little too anti-enterprise for my taste. It is a little too conservative. It has not caught up with some of the new thinking that I personally and some of my colleagues wish to see disseminated.
I sympathise with the description about a year ago at the Edinburgh television festival by Mr. Rupert Murdoch of that sort of cultural bias by the BBC, but then I say to myself, "What can we do about it? What we see on the box is a reflection of the state of our society." In my view, it is an inert and over-conservative society that does not respond as quickly as I personally would like to some of the policies that the Government want to pursue. We have to remember, however, that Mr. Rupert Murdoch's cure for that form of bias would be far worse than the disease. We should be screaming for a return of the bias after we had had a dose of Mr. Rupert Murdoch on the BBC.
6.45 pm
The fourth form of bias is the most difficult of all. It is ontological bias. I know that that is an awful word, but I think that it is the one that I mean, if I have got it right. It means that bias is built into the nature of the medium. It means that, if there is a spectacular picture, no matter who is at the controls behind the machine there will be an enormous compulsion to show it. Nine times out of 10, that picture will be damaging to authority, order and reasoned assumptions. However, there is nothing that we can do about it. That is the nature of television film. One could write philosophical treatises about it, but there is nothing that we can do about it.
That reinforces the other form of bias, the inbuilt anti-Government bias of the medium. There is nothing that can or should be done about it. Moreover, we should be grown up about it.
What concerns me about the Bill has nothing to do with oppression and some of the other exaggerated words that have been used by the Opposition. My belief is that the amendment, even in its watered-down form, springs more from instinct than from intelligence. If a little more thought had been given to the nature of the broadcasting medium in general, and television in particular, I should not have been put in this sad and silly position of having to vote, as I shall do tonight, against something, not


because I think that it will do immense damage to the country, or that it will seriously curtail freedom of speech, but because I believe that it is a sad and silly amendment.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have to declare an interest as the presenter of a political programme for Sky Television. It might be seen as an attenuated interest, given what I read inPrivate Eye, but it is there, none the less.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on his speech. He suffers in his party from an unfortunate handicap—that he can think. If more Conservative Members suffered from it, we should not be debating the amendment. I do not intend to follow the attempt by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) to be humorous about this sad and sorry affair, but he could have devised something worse than putting Central Office in charge of television. It would almost certainly do for the viewing figures what it did for the vote in Eastbourne. However, that could do radio, for which both the hon. Member for Aldershot and I have made programmes, a great deal of good. It could, by contrast with some regimes, be enlightened. I think of the news coming from a lectern in Downing street and of a nice little programme about Downing street called "Neighbours", with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) playing Kylie Minogue's role and the Minister for the Arts playing the Jason Donovan of the series. It could be an interesting programme.
What is even more important, if television were put under the control of Central Office we should not have the saturation bombing of the BBC by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) from which we have suffered in the past. It could be more enlightened than the regime under which the Lords amendment would put it. That would lead to much influence in television being given to a body that would be less enlightened, more partisan, prejudiced and ideological than even Central Office. It would pass it to the judges and the courts. If such a requirement, framed in that way, is written into the law, we shall turn the whole matter over to the courts. It is a sensitive question. Moreover, it is a question on which a large collection of people, with strong prejudices and large amounts of money, are prepared to go to law. We have many wealthy lunatics in this country who will almost certainly want to take up the opportunity that is offered to them to wreak a sort of indirect revenge on the broadcasting system for all the prejudices that we have heard about today. It creates an opening for any lunatic with any prejudice and enough money to push the issue into the courts.
The debate is a sad reflection of the way in which the Government function and how decisions are taken. The Bill's progress has been a steady dilution of the Prime Minister's very real prejudices. She wants to bring a touch of discipline into television. She does not like it, is prejudiced against it and wants to put the frighteners on it by legislation. Throughout the months in Committee and in the House, we have seen a steady dilution of that impact. The Minister has done the job, on which we have all congratulated him, of diluting those prejudices. He will earn plaudits from the media, the Opposition and the House. Yet now, after the Bill has been to the House of Lords, the Prime Minister is wreaking her revenge through her representatives in the geriatric ward up there. Lord Wyatt proposed this amendment, which is known to echo her instincts, attitudes and views. We now have the

spectacle of that nice Minister who has told us one thing being forced to say something else because of the process in the House of Lords.

Mr. Tony Banks: What I find most distressing about the debate—perhaps my hon. Friend will agree—is that the majority of hon. Members on both sides who have spoken have disagreed with the code. What is acutely depressing is that we can win the debate and then lose the vote. That is a very sad mark of our parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, it is a sad mark. In fact, the Minister's own words go against the proposal. lin Committee, the Minister said:
When I was presented with the opportunity to reflect: on whether we should make changes to the impartiality requirement, it occurred to me that a Government of any stripe are almost the last group to be credited with impartiality. I decided that it was better to leave well alone. That is what I have done … The Government deserve some credit in this matter. We have not fiddled around with impartiality arrangements. We felt that it was better to leave the goalposts where they were. Grief has not been turned away entirely, but may be more difficult to detect among the clouds of suspicion inevitably generated—rightly or wrongly—about these matters.
He went on to enlarge on that and said:
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Erdington, as he has put his finger on an issue that has caused me concern. My inclination was to leave the impartiality provisions as they were on the basis that our impartiality would not be readily accepted by some, and thus it would be better to leave matters well alone unless there was a compelling reason for changing them … The problem with removing it is that, as with many of these matters, it is easy to have a well intentioned stab at an alternative, and easy to find a reason why that well intentioned stab is not as good as what one has."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 30 January 1990; c. 411–17.]
That was in January and now, in October, all those words have to be eaten. It is like running against one's own video tape in an election campaign. The Minister's case then was strong and telling and he should be putting it now.

Mr. Mellor: I am sorry to intervene because I know that there are some who want to draw the debate to a close. If what I am doing today required me to eat those words, I should not be here doing it. I want to make that clear. I have stood up for what I believe about the Bill on several occasions. The fact that I am commending the amendment is not in any sense a violation of what I said in January. What I said then related to the basic law on impartiality. We are talking about subsidiary matters to the code. The law is precisely as it was. When I spoke those words in January, there was a provision for a code. What has happened in the House of Lords is not that what Lord Wyatt said should be in the Bill has been put in the Bill, but certain matters were added to the requirement for a code to assert that the ITC should have regard to certain areas which, if it saw fit, a code should cover. That is different from changing the law on impartiality which, I shall say with the same force as I did in January, we are advised to leave well alone. My advice has been taken on that point.

Mr. Mitchell: The Minister doth protest too much. I am happy to allow him a long intervention but his position must be ambiguous if the intervention had to be that long to explain it. In January, he was arguing about leaving the requirement as it is. He is now arguing in favour of writing something into the Bill in the terms suggested by the House of Lords. That is an entirely different position. I accept


what he said about the other changes to the Bill, but he cannot have it both ways on this matter. That is the problem.
To enlarge the field of attack, the fact that the ITC has tacitly sanctioned the provision—albeit under duress—is a betrayal of its responsibilty. It has let down the television industry. The television industry feels that the ITC caved in far too easily.
We are left with a folly. The legal opinions gathered by the various television organisations make a telling case against the amendment, which throws everything into the courts. That is the wrong forum for airing such issues.
Professor J. M. Finnis for the Independent Television Association said:
There can be no doubt that the phrase 'take account of has an unsatisfactory elusiveness. It could be interpreted by a court as requiring that the ITC's rule conform to some judicially conceived standard about what matters are and are not major, and/or about what is and is not a due standard of impartiality … Such an interpretation … might be supported by pointing to the fact that whereas (4B) expressly provides that the rules need comply with the requirements of (4B) only 'to such extent as the Commission consider appropriate', there is no such leeway expressed in the face of (4A)".
Christopher Beaumont, the Queen's counsel for ITN, said:
If the word 'major' is used it would raise formidable problems of drafing and definition. There would probably have to be a catch-all provision … I think that as the latest Third reading amendments stand there could be a risk of the Courts being asked to rule on the criteria used by editors in compiling their programmes.
That is a further argument against the amendment.
Anthony Scrivener, Queen's counsel for Channel 4, said:
The words 'major matters' involve making a judgemental decision in a context where there is and can be no guidance as to how the words should be defined. It is obvious that what one person may consider to be a 'major matter' would be considered by another to be a matter of little importance.
Lord Goodman said that the amendment proposed is "virtually legally unworkable." He went on to say:
Quite apart from the legal difficulties (including applications for injunctions before transmission, applications to the Divisional Court, and post transmission complaints and litigation) the practical difficulties are insuperable.
He goes on to put the point that I have already made about defining the words "major matters". That is the mess in which we are left. This is a sensitive area and people have strong feelings. People with money have prejudices that they want to pursue and the issue will be pushed into the courts.
This matter is central to the regulation and self-discipline of broadcasting and we are taking it out of the hands of the regulators, saying, "We have no confidence in you because we are going to throw it into the courts." That is a failure of the principle of regulation that has been the essence of our system until now.
The matter is one for doubt, hesitation and pain. We cannot compromise with this amendment. There is no way of taking out its teeth, diluting it or modifying it. It has to go. If it does not, we shall be in uncharted waters and enormous difficulties will be caused.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: We have, effectively, been reviewing the question of impartiality since 1954—in the Broadcasting Act 1981, for instance.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) kept circumventing the main point. His objection to the amendment concerns the use of the code. An impartiality code relating to the BBC and the IBA has operated for many years, and, as far as we can establish, has prompted no litigation in the past 36 years. Why should it suddenly start now?
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made a good point: he said that we should allow the regulators to operate at arm's length from the Government, who, he said, should not be involved. Careful scrutiny of the amendment, however, reveals that that is precisely what the Government have set out to achieve. They do not suggest that the code that will govern future broadcasting is written in the Bill; the code will be written and implemented by the ITC. The amendment lays down what the code should include to ensure impartiality, but it does not say how that should be done.
7 pm
No Conservative Member is setting out to censor, say, a series of television programmes. The director, or producer, must have the right to present his argument. The code is intended to ensure a proper balance: the aim is to prevent a director from presenting a series of programmes—the amendment refers specifically to a series—in which only one party or point of view is represented, and no attempt is made to balance that with opposing views.
Since the introduction of the Television Act 1954, the power of the media has vastly increased. How many of us receive letters from constituents who have been moved to write to their Member of Parliament about a television programme? Surely we should be trying to ensure that, when an argument is presented to the public by such a powerful medium, the opposing argument is presented as well. We are not trying to tell broadcasters what they should be doing; we are asking them to do what they have been required to do since 1954.
Let me deal—as a former practising barrister—with the question of litigation. We are being asked to judge whether the code will prompt extensive litigation before it has even been written, which is nonsense. Lawyers in the other place have passed judgment on something that is not yet in existence, adducing the few scintillas of evidence available to them in relation to the ITC's guidelines. Should we not pay more attention to the experience of the past 36 years than to a few lawyers in the other place and outside the House who are gazing into their crystal balls?
The ITC will view the code in a common-sense way, remaining at arm's length from the Government, political parties and specific points of view. The ITC will be the regulator. As a member of the governing party of this country—the Conservative party—I do not wish to be involved in broadcasting; I merely want the regulators to ensure that impartiality is exercised. I am sure that the ITC will not produce a code that obliges the Leader of the Opposition, for instance, to follow any speech by the Prime Minister about a news item with his own comments. Surely everyone recognises that that would be absurd.
Given the current power of the media, we must provide guidelines, and give the authority to implement them to people who operate at arm's length from the House of Commons.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: What about the press?

Mr. Hind: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is possible to buy a whole range of newspapers and to choose which political point of view to absorb. That choice is not possible when one particular point of view is being expressed on one particular television channel.
Some may consider that this proposal is going in the wrong direction, but it is based on 36 years' experience, and—in view of the growing power of the broadcasting media—makes good sense. Those who say that it will change the face of broadcasting are living in cloud cuckoo land. It will not do that; what it will do is provide a sensible framework for the future.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am prompted to speak by something that was said by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He based part of this argument against the amendment on the fact that the IRA and its supporters were not allowed to broadcast freely.
I am afraid that, as a Northern Ireland Member, I cannot accept that the sickening spectacle of supporters of terrorism—and, on occasion, the terrorists themselves—should appear in people's living rooms after the atrocities such as have been perpetrated this week and in the past. That cannot be used as an argument for freedom.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. We were talking about proscribed organisations and the form that they take. I said that we were being denied the freedom to judge such organisations for what they are. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that their members are evil and godless people, I entirely agree, but I believe that, as an honourable citizen, I am able to judge their evil and godlessness for myself.

Mr. Forsythe: If someone who had just killed a child in a forest was interviewed by the BBC or Ulster Television, I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to take part, believing that that constituted freedom. We in Northern Ireland, who suffer such terrorist incidents daily—who witness them from our living rooms—support freedom as much as anyone in the United Kingdom. We are in favour of democratic freedom and freedom of expression. Sometimes, however, we are not given the freedom to live. I hope that the House will not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills in deciding whether or not to support the amendment.
I accept the argument that television should be impartial, and in Northern Ireland, Ulster Television is very good in that respect. Unfortunately, the BBC—although it will not be affected by the Bill—cannot be said to show the same impartiality.

Mr. David Trimble: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in respect of both Ulster Television and BBC Northern Ireland, the local broadcasters in Belfast behave responsibly, and that irresponsible behaviour is usually associated with broadcasters based in London—whose conduct in the past makes a strong case for the proposed new clause?

Mr. Forsythe: My hon. Friend makes the point very well.
Years ago, I was a professional footballer. We all knew the rules—including the referee—and did not try to change them while we were on the pitch. Even the professional footballers of today who are paid enormous sums of money do not attempt to change the rules of the game. I

do not understand why there should be any objection to guidelines that could easily be observed, or why there is such fear of them among the television companies. Is it their intention to broadcast programmes that would break those rules? It occurs to me that we are anticipating a situation that may never arise, but certainly my hon. Friends and I support the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) is right to say that there is nothing in the Lords amendments to which anyone could take serious exception. The interesting question is whether the amendments are necessary, but to debate that would require passing judgment on the proceedings in another place.
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who was the first to be alert to some of the dangers in the original Bill. He has not been sufficiently credited with helping to make possible the return of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) to the Home Office to get a grip on the Bill and to put it in such a form that allows all right hon. and hon. Members to support its provisions.
The broader issue is that television must be interesting, and that producers and editors should be allowed to choose the subjects that they cover. By all means argue, but they should choose—and the BBC and independent companies should devise their own codes and guidelines by which their programmes are made. I hope that other organisations will spend £5 on buying "BBC Guidelines for factual programmes," which on pages 21 and 21—which shows how numerate is the BBC—presents the corporation's code. Given the length of this debate already, I shall not quote even the extracts in bold type. Nevertheless, those who have grounds to complain—given the vast range of programmes produced, there should be scope to make complaints, and whether or not they are upheld by the BBC itself or others does not matter—ought to be able to do so, when the programmes that are the subject of such complaints can be judged against the broadcasters' own criteria.
Past controversies proved that broadcasters have not lived up to their own codes, which is only natural. There must be scope for human error and for differences of judgment. However, I follow the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham in saying that much of what is newsworthy and broadcast is anti-Government. It is not anti-Government in the sense thatThe Guardian is—and which, because it thinks that the Opposition are so feeble, regards itself as a one-newspaper opposition to the Government, and always tests the Government rather better than the Labour party.The Guardian is anti-Government in terms of challenging the Government and providing a forum for debate of a kind that cannot always fully take place in this House.
The House should support the Government in their reluctance to say that nothing can be done if it might be the subject of a genuine complaint. That is a potential danger in journalism in respect of press freedom, and Calcutt arid the new criminal law affecting journalists begs full debate and preferably delay. One thinks also of the privacy Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Knight) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who together managed to stop it making too much progress last Session. There is also the


question of the statutory right of reply. We must be big enough to say that we will not stop being broadcast anything against which a complaint might be lodged.
My recommendation is that people should take the bigger attitude, and recognise that one can sometimes succeed with a complaint, as one should—but that on other occasions simply a row can help. Most of the time, it is worth considering the variety of programmes and ways in which people can put across their views, and accept that broadcasting and the press are a bit like this House, in that they can say what they think, but must accept the consequences.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is a parliamentarian with a deft sense of humour, and he will need it when he comes to winding up this debate on the so-called impartiality amendments. I liked his style when he opened the debate. To my satisfaction, it lacked the messianic fervour exhibited by Lord Wyatt or even by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). My right hon. and learned Friend affected instead the manner of a cynical head waiter who finds himself serving a dish when he does not really like the chef's cooking.
I did not find my right hon. and learned Friend totally convincing, but he was more convincing than the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who over-egged his pudding. He seemed to be using a sledgehammer rather than a stiletto, and made our flesh creep not only with talk of lawyers' picnics—although I did not infer that he was all that averse to them—but with words such as "intimidatory" and "offensiveness". He conjured up a vision of a new Woodrow Wyatt wing being built on to Brixton prison to accommodate erring broadcasters.
Let us return to the point at which the Bill left this House in July. What happened since serves as a cautionary tale of a lordly rake's progress. The Bill was in good shape when it left this House. There was no discontent about its provisions and no amendments concerning impartiality or the lack of it had been tabled at any stage. As my right hon. and learned Friend honestly admitted, the Government felt no concern about the lack of impartiality clauses.
When the Bill reached the other place, enter the voice of the people in the rather surprising shape of the patrician Lord Wyatt of Weeford, who claimed to speak for an army of discontented listeners and viewers who complained of major bias. There is no use pretending that constituency does not exist. It was echoed in our own debates, particularly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley.
What response should one make to that angry if sometimes contradictory discontent? My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley directed most of his fire at a programme entitled "Start the Week". Apart from the fact that it is not covered by the Bill, it is one seen by many listeners who genuinely enjoy it and cannot find anything to be cross about. That shows that one man's negative bias is very often another man's positive political enjoyment or prejudice.
Such contradictions did not deter Lord Wyatt, who, like Prince Rupert of the Rhine, went riding off on a charger in all directions. He did not mind where he went, and he probably would not have achieved anything, except the decent obscurity of a Division defeat, if the principal opposition had not come from Lord Thomson of Monifieth, formerly head of the IBA. I watched those two ancient gladiators clash over programme after programme, and found it difficult to decide which of them was talking greater nonsense.
Lord Wyatt seemed to believe that civilisation was under threat because of terrible bias and lack of impartiality, whereas Lord Thomson appeared to be arguing that under the IBA, all British broadcasting was pure, holy and impartial, for ever and ever, amen—and that all broadcasters abided by the spirit of the Television Act 1954 and the code that goes with it. The truth of the matter is that only a minority of British broadcasters have even heard of that code, let alone abided by it. Above all, Lord Thomson seemed to be saying that Lord Wyatt's suggestions were a terrible threat to free speech.
I simply could not swallow either proposition, but then Lord Whitelaw got in on the act, firing his blunderbuss in the air in confusing directions. One week he was opposed to Lord Wyatt's amendments, but then, for no discernible reason, he was in favour of them. I was not surprised that the Bill was passed by the House of Lords. I do not pretend to understand the proceedings of the other place, but after much confusing debate the Wyatt amendments were made.
What difference have the amendments made to the Bill? It is not massively different from before. There always was a code on impartiality for broadcasters, with statutory backing under the 1954 Act. It is perhaps regrettable that so few broadcasters have heard of the code or of the statuory backing, but having been in television in various guises from reporter to, rather briefly, chief executive, may I say that I had not heard of it until Lord Wyatt mentioned it.
I am not surprised that the old code was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Perhaps it is no bad thing that broadcasters should be aware of the code. Declaratory legislation shows that concepts such as fairness and impartiality cannot be effectively codified because they are matters of editorial judgment. Good broadcasting and good journalism will come not from codes or laws but from the morality, ethics and good judgment of editors, producers and senior managers.
Against that background, does it matter whether the amendment is made or not? I heard the voices of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who will vote against the Bill because he thinks that the amendments are too silly, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who thinks that they offend the libertarian spirit of this country. I hold a different view from the two extremes that have been taken—that the amendments are a denial of free speech and that they will cause a new era in the impartiality of our broadcasting systems. The amendment will make a marginal difference. It is a matter of judgment whether it will make a positive or negative difference. I do not think that the existence of the signposts or headings will make any difference because the code has the kind of headlines that any sensible code would have.
British broadcasting needs not more impartiality but more professionalism. To illustrate that point, one need


only go back to the Alasdair Milne era of the BBC, when things were going wrong not because of wild bias and lack of impartiality but because of a sheer lack of professionalism. That changed under the new editor-in-chief.
We want not so much less bias as more freedom of choice. We want more peer pressure, not necessarily more pressure from peers, but these are matters of editorial judgment. By a tiny margin, the judgment of editors will be positively strengthened by the code—and by drawing attention to it rather than diminishing it and making it negative. It is not a big deal either way. It is a little bit silly, but I shall vote in favour of the amendments.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Were Conservative Members a television company, we would have fully met all the requirements on impartiality. My hon. Friends have admirably represented both sides of the case—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), with his typically robust and vigorous defence of freedom, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), with his great insight, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who put a more robust point of view in defence of the amendments. I cannot say the same for the Opposition, who were rather biased and who encompassed only one view. At least Conservative Members encompassed several views.
We were all particularly delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) managed to drag himself away from the garrison town to share with us, in the intimacy of the House, his next newspaper article, for which undoubtedly he will be paid. He was the light entertainment for the House.
It is perfectly clear that due impartiality is what the public expect from their television broadcasting. It was universally agreed that, when there was a duopoly, it was absolutely vital. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked whether, as we have a multiplicity of television channels, there is a need for the same requirements of impartiality to be imposed. I believe that it still needs to be imposed. Although the parallel has been drawn with newspapers, we all recognise that the power of newspapers is not as great as that of television. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister rightly said that this is still a scarce resource, and it is therefore right and proper that this most powerful medium should continue to be governed by the impartiality rules.
I want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley in giving a couple of examples. Opposition Members find it difficult to understand why we feel exercised about these matters, so I shall cite two examples. The first is the broadcast by the BBC in May 1988 of the television drama "Tumbledown", the dramatised account of events at the battle on Mount Tumbledown during the Falklands war. The BBC argued that the film was non-political, but in a widely publicised account of the preview of it, its director, Richard Eyre, was reported as having said:
I would feel the film a failure if it's not deeply political …
I don't think the film is balanced, and I hope that's considered one of its advantages, its virtues.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is nodding. He agrees with that, and so would I if another side of the Falklands campaign had been shown. There was another side—"The Falklands Play", which was commissioned by Alasdair Milne, the former director-general of the BBC, and written by a celebrated

playwright, Ian Curteis. Alasdair Milne described it as a terrific story and a play that had enriched the BBC. Unfortunately, he felt that he could not screen it because we were in the run-up to a general election.
That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, Conservative Members believe that there has been a lack of professionalism. That was acknowledged by Michael Checkland, the new director-general of the BBC, last year. He said:
I think there was a point in the BBC when we kind of missed what was going on, the fact that the country had moved over in the last decade to the right
and that there had been a Conservative Government for 11 years.
Opposition Members attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for not producing examples, but it is important for the House to have examples. Clearly the director-general's prescriptions had not extended to Scotland, where there is a new twist in the concept of balance. Radio Scotland's editor of news and current affairs said in a letter in August last year to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth):
I do not believe you are right when you accuse us of lack of balance. The Scottish body politic is out of kilter, and that will inevitably be reflected in our programmes.
If that were the rule on impartiality in television, there would be no case for Labour representation in the south of England, and clearly Labour Members would not believe that to be right. I hope that, in clarifying those arguments and giving those examples, I have been able to show the Opposition that there are justifications for the provision.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman had a good shout, and I recognise that the House wants to move on.
The argument is not about impartiality—that is set out clearly in clause 6(1)(b). The minds of many people have been exercised by the imprecise nature of that provision. That is why my noble Friends felt that they had to pursue this matter and why they fought vigorously to incorporate the amendment in the Bill. I salute their endeavours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South said that there are plenty of guidelines, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) gave some examples. In the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and myself, it was not that the guidelines did not exist, but that they were flagrantly breached. There was a lack of professionalism. Clearly we cannot legislate for professionalism in broadcasting. This is not a draconian amendment. It will spell out to the ITC firmly and clearly Parliament's intention in seeking to ensure that there is proper impartiality. The amendment is not prescriptive. It creates a framework, and Parliament is entitled to draw up that framework.
I will conclude—[Hots. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has probably cast me in the role of the epilogue. I warmly welcome the Government's stand on this matter. It is up to the ITC to continue a long-established tradition of political impartiality. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is on dangerous ground when he would deny the public the right to challenge the ITC's decisions. I am sure that he does not believe that members of the


public should not have that right, and that the commissioners should have the last word. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not that much of a dirigiste that he would deny members of the public that right.
It is extraordinary to suggest that there will be a plethora of legal actions. Some of us know how costly they are—one cannot mount a legal action unless one has the necessary resources. The only people with anything to fear from the amendment are those broadcasters who are contemptuous of the traditional concerns for impartiality which have long been regarded as worth while in this country. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Hattersley: I simply want to ask the Minister two specific questions and make one point before the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes, I hope, a good deal of time describing why the clause is necessary. He normally addresses the House with great courtesy and often with great persuasiveness. He owes the House something that we have not yet had—a description of why he believes the clause is necessary. In the hope that I can provoke him into doing that, I want to ask him two questions.
The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) seemed to be labouring under the illusion that the clause applied to the BBC.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hattersley: It appears that he is not under that illusion, but all his examples of partiality were taken from the BBC. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) did the same. The Minister for the Arts should put those hon. Gentlemen and us out our misery by telling us why, if it is imperative to have such a code with legal backing and all that that implies for independent television, it is not necessary to have such a code for the BBC. Why is this necessity so great for the independent channels and not for the public corporation? I should be grateful for an explicit answer on why this decision has been taken.
I return to a crucial question. I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly why he regards the clause as necessary—not why he regards it as trivial, superficial, or cosmetic, not why he thinks that it will do less damage than we fear, not why he thinks that it will do more good than others suspect, but why he regards it as necessary in the first place. As I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer that question, I shall give one specific, brief example of why I regard the clause as dangerous.
Were it the clause of the emollient Minister for the Arts, we would regard it as a little triviality that added to the gaiety of parliamentary life, but the real motive behind the clause was expressed in specific terms by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Gentleman was very close to saying that programmes that do not accept the established view of the Government of the day have to be treated as suspect and probably suppressed. The hon. Gentleman made a speech which was wholly ridiculous and which will be regarded with complete derision by sensible people, but the fact that his speech was ridiculous does not mean that there is not, underneath the absurdity, a vein of deeply disturbing and sinister attitudes towards a free society. That is the real motive behind the clause.

Mr. Riddick: That is not what I said. Broadcasters have every right to have whatever political view they wish; I am saying that they should not reflect their personal political viewpoint in their programmes. What is wrong with that? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what is wrong with that. I do not want to offend the hon. Gentleman's neighbours by overstating my criticism, but it is wrong because, first, it is not consistent with free broadcasting and, secondly, it is not consistent with good broadcasts. I shall give an example. Professor Minogue of the London School of Economics produced a series, which looked like a factual description of history, which was devoted to the concept that socialism was a disaster and had failed wherever it had been tried. The hon. Member for Colne Valley may be surprised to hear that I do not share that view. But the idea that Professor Minogue should have been prevented from making his series is preposterous.
I want to see a diversity of programmes. I do not want broadcasters to be bullied, forcing them to look over their shoulders in case Members like the hon. Member for Colne Valley are doing through the clause what they want to do, even though that may not be the intention of the Minister for the Arts. But we are to hear what the Minister's intentions are. We shall hear for the first time in the debate why he thinks that the amendment is necessary and why he has commended it to the House.

Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was less than fair to my previous effusion, which I thought set out matters with great clarity. I shall give a shortened version, so that those who wish to proceed to a vote may do so. I sensed during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) that there were those who wished to do so, so I shall not run the risk of wearying people too much.
I am genuinely sorry that, a number of controversial matters having been resolved during the Bill's passage, we have not succeeded in moving much closer together on this issue. I should like briefly to restate the purpose of the amendment and to set it in its context.
The first point to make absolutely clear, following a series of speeches—most recently that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—is that, when I said in January that I did not think that there was a case for any substantive change in the law on impartiality, I meant every word, and I have stuck by every word. The fruits of that are to be seen in clause 6(1)(c), dealing with requirements placed on the commission:
due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service as respects matters of current political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy".
That is precisely the formulation that has appeared in every broadcasting statute pertaining to independent television since 1954—not a word of it has changed. That is a commendation of the Bill, not a criticism of it.
One thing has changed, for good reason. There is now a statutory requirement for a code instead of guidelines. My hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made speeches that expressed my views on many of these matters.[Interruption.] I am glad that my commendation of my hon. Friends has gone down so well. Perhaps I will commend a few more, in the hope that mass popularity


will follow. The IBA had guidelines and associated powers of pre-vetting and so on. As the ITC is a regulator, but not the broadcaster, it seemed appropriate that the guidance that it should give should be formalised into a code so that both the broadcasters and the public knew where they stood.
The debate has grown like Topsy. People have begun, in their enthusiasm for the fight, to take issue with points that were perfectly accepted all along. I do not mean it cynically when I say that I always enjoy the contributions of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who speaks with great authority. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but he seemed in the end to take issue with the very idea of a code. When the Bill was last debated in this House, everyone was happy about having a code; it was not a controversial element.

Mr. Rees: Not a statutory code.

Mr. Mellor: It was a statutory code. For the first time, the code was provided for in statute. The Bill then went to the House of Lords, where, perfectly properly, their Lordships debated the Bill vigorously. Lord Wyatt put forward various amendments, such as the proposal that, when a biased programme was shown, a balancing programme had to be shown within one month and he wanted that provision to be on the face of the statute. That drew forth my remark in September to the Royal Television Society that I thought such an approach was unwarrantedly mechanistic and would not be successful. The original proposal was rejected and we ended up with an element of reassurance.[Interruption.]
I know that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook can hardly contain himself. However, I am now coming to the point that he wanted me to address. Although the Labour party is terribly relaxed about all this impartiality stuff at the moment, it was not very relaxed about it when it was last in office. I dare swear that, if Labour were ever to regain office, the state of relaxation would soon change into a nastier turn of mind. We hope that this legislation will last a long time, so it has to encompass all manner of possible responses.

Mr. Corbett: You had better not do it then.

Mr. Mellor: That is the best argument against that I have heard all evening. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as persuasive for the rest of the night so that we can have an earlier bath than most of us expect.
Some people were concerned that the code should address issues, and they wanted the answer to those matters contained in the statute. We rejected that for the reasons of principle that I have explained. However, in the interests as it then seemed—unwarrantedly, as it now appears—of spreading a bit of sweetness and light on the matter, there seemed no harm in deciding that, even if we could not give people the resolution of the problems on the face of the Bill because it would be wrong in principle, we could offer the reassurance that the code would address certain key elements.
Once again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) that no self-respecting code could fail to address such matters. However, not everyone is as trusting as I am. It may be felt that it is better and makes reassurance doubly sure that we should

put on the face of the Bill areas that the code should cover. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, as long as we do not say how the code should say it.
I cannot bring myself to say that this is the most fundamentally significant reform that has ever been brought before the House or even that it is the most fundamentally significant reform that I have embraced this week, today, or even in the past 25 minutes. However, it is one of 700 Lords amendments which has been plucked out of its obscurity because other people have chosen to get excited about it. I can say only that it is of benefit that the code, which we have all decided is useful, should cover issues that will properly go to the heart of the matter.
The ITC believes that the proposal is helpful and workable, and that it does not infringe any of the broadcaster's prerogatives. I am sorry that that is not as enthusiastic an endorsement as I could muster for other issues, but it is an endorsement with which I hope to carry my hon. Friends into the Lobby with me tonight.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 181.

Division No. 342]
[7.43 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Simon(Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amess, David
Curry, David


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)
Davis, David(Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Dicks, Terry


Banks, Robert(Harrogate)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)
Dunn, Bob


Benyon, W.
Durant, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Emery, Sir Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, David(Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Favell, Tony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowden, A(Brighton K'pto'n)
Field, Barry(Isle of Wight)


Bowden, Gerald(Dulwich)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)


Browne, John(Winchester)
Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)


Bruce, Ian(Dorset South)
Forth, Eric


Buck, Sir Antony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Budgen, Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Peter


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butler, Chris
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John,(Luton N)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony(CambsSW)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John(Ryedale)


Churchill, Mr
Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)


Clark, Dr Michael(Rochford)
Grist, Ian


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Hague, William


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Conway, Derek
Hannam, John


Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)
Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')






Hargreaves, Ken(Hyndburn)
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholson, David(Taunton)


Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, Emma(Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hicks, Mrs Maureen(Wolv' NE)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hicks, Robert(Cornwall SE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hill, James
Paice, James


Hind, Kenneth
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)
Porter, David(Waveney)


Howell, Ralph(North Norfolk)
Powell, William(Corby)


Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, David(Wirral W)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, Sir John(Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Irving, Sir Charles
Rhodes James, Robert


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)


Janman, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Hon Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Kilfedder, James
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David(Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)


Knight, Greg(Derby North)
Shelton, Sir William


Knight, Dame Jill(Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lee, John(Pendle)
Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Sir Ian(Havant)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian(Herts N)


Madel, David
Stokes, Sir John


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)


Marshall, John(Hendon S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Martin, David(Portsmouth S)
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Mellor, David
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trimble, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Trippier, David


Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Morris, M(N'hampton S)
Walker, Bill(T'side North)


Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)
Wardle, Charles(Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Watts, John


Mudd, David
Wells, Bowen


Neale, Gerrard
Wheeler, Sir John





Whitney, Ray
Woodcock, Dr. Mike.


Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John



Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Sir George Young and 


Wood, Timothy
 Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)


Allen, Graham
Harman, Ms Harriet


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Armstrong, Hilary
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)
Hoey, Ms Kate(Vauxhall)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie(Greenwich)
Hogg, N.(C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Battle, John
Hood, Jimmy


Beckett, Margaret
Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, John(Coventry NE)


Bidwell, Sydney
lllsley, Eric


Boateng, Paul
Ingram, Adam


Boyes, Roland
Jones, Barry(Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bradley, Keith
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Leighton, Ron


Brown, Gordon(D'mline E)
Lestor, Joan(Eccles)


Brown, Nicholas(Newcastle E)
Lewis, Terry


Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)
Litherland, Robert


Buckley, George J.
Livingstone, Ken


Caborn, Richard
Livsey, Richard


Callaghan, Jim
Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)


Campbell, Ron(Blyth Valley)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McAllion, John


Canavan, Dennis
McAvoy, Thomas


Carlile, Alex(Mont'g)
McCartney, Ian


Clark, Dr David(S Shields)
McFall, John


Clarke, Tom(Monklands W)
McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)


Clay, Bob
McKelvey, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McLeish, Henry


Cook, Robin(Livingston)
Maclennan, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McNamara, Kevin


Corbyn, Jeremy
McWilliam, John


Cousins, Jim
Madden, Max


Critchley, Julian
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, David(Shettleston)


Cummings, John
Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)


Darling, Alistair
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)
Meale, Alan


Davis, Terry(B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michael, Alun


Dewar, Donald
Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Michie, Mrs Ray(Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dobson, Frank
Mitchell, Austin(G't Grimsby)


Doran, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morgan, Rhodri


Eastham, Ken
Morley, Elliot


Evans, John(St Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fearn, Ronald
Mowlam, Marjorie


Field, Frank(Birkenhead)
Mullin, Chris


Fields, Terry(L'pool B G'n)
Murphy, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Nellist, Dave


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flynn, Paul
O'Hara, Edward


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fyfe, Maria
Parry, Robert


Garrett, John(Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, Ted(Wallsend)
Pendry, Tom


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Golding, Mrs Llin
Radice, Giles


Gordon, Mildred
Randall, Stuart


Gould, Bryan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Graham, Thomas
Richardson, Jo


Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)
Robinson, Geoffrey






Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Rooker, Jeff
Thompson, Jack(Wansbeck)


Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis


Rowlands, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Joan
Walden, George


Sedgemore, Brian
Waller, Gary


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Joan


Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)
Wareing, Robert N.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, Mike(Glasgow, C)


Short, Clare
Welsh, Michael(Doncaster N)


Sillars, Jim
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, Rt Hon J.(Monk'ds E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)
Wray, Jimmy


Snape, Peter
Young, David(Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Ray Powell.


Stott, Roger



Strang, Gavin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 15

APPLICATIONS FOR CHANNEL 3 LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 13, line 2, after ("the") insert ("programming and other").

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 46 and the Government motion to disagree; No. 47 and amendments (a) and (b) and the Government motion to disagree; and amendment No. 48 and the Government motion to disagree.

Mr. Mellor: I am considerably reluctant to seek to disagree with the Lords amendments. The amendments are significant because they refer to the only defeat that the Government suffered in either House during the passage of the Bill. The fact that we did not suffer any other defeat was not because the Government were able, automatically, to rely on a majority to steamroller the Bill through, but because——

Ms. Diane Abbott: Pull the other one.

Mr. Mellor: Please do not put me off, or I shall just take longer. The hon. Lady will be proud to testify that during our discussions on important issues in Committee it was often possible to reach understandings that mitigated, in some cases removed, some of the concerns felt.
I do not want to take up a great deal of time, nor to prevent the miniature meeting of the shadow Cabinet which appears to be taking place on the Opposition Front Bench. There is a collection of excited bearded people having a conversation——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am not a member of the shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Mellor: Well, the time may come—it will be the shadow Cabinet, not the real thing.
I invite the House to take the serious step of rejecting the Lords amendment, not because I take issue with the intention behind it, but because I do not believe that the amendment represents the right way ahead. I pray in aid the debates in the House before the Bill went to another

place. Those debates led us to put the Bill into better shape than it was when it started and certainly into better shape than it is now with the addition of the three elements that I invite the House to reject.
The key element of our deliberations is to ensure that we preserve on Channel 3 a diverse service catering for a wide range of tastes and interests. That is the statutory requirement.
We acepted the case for including in the Bill specific references to religion and to children's programmes. I accept that there was quite a strong lobby for another item, education, but——

Mr. Mark Fisher: A huge lobby.

Mr. Mellor: Only huge in terms of the girth of some of those advocating it. Let us say that substantial arguments were put forward by weighty figures on the subject of education.
But, generally speaking, it was accepted that the laundry list, as it came to be known, held no great attraction for most hon. Members and that it was better to place our faith in the diversity requirements, substantially buttressed, as it was, by the ITC being given a statutory power, which we gave it during the passage of the Bill, to send out, in effect, a prospectus to applicants making it clear how it thought applicants should begin. With the range of programmes currently available, applicants should not assume that they could cross the quality threshold, which we made more substantial during the passage of the Bill, without accepting that diversity meant using the existing range of programmes as a starting point.
8 pm
I lay great stress on that because I do not believe that, if any half dozen of us gathered tonight and constituted ourselves as applicants for a franchise and talked about what we should put in, any of us could confidently say, "We can leave out documentaries", or, "We can leave out educational programmes," or, "We can leave out social action programmes." It is clear from everything that has been said, from what people will have heard from the ITC and from what we now know to be the balance in the Bill between quality and price that nobody could be sure that if they left out such programme types, they would be able to surmount the quality hurdle.
I say with sincerity that I do not doubt the good intentions of those who inflicted this one painful defeat on the Government in the other place. Plainly, they wished to ensure that independent television continues to cover certain categories of programmes. We approach these issues as experienced legislators, now that we have got down to the hard core of what might be called activists. Most of the people in the House now sat through the various stages of the Bill and know what we are talking about, and the more populist figures have gone for their supper. Most of those present now would not want to call themselves populist figures—[interruption.]—or would not have the capability to do so, having columns in the daily newspapers and so on.
We are left with something of a difficulty because, added to children and religion, we have documentaries, social action and education programmes. We must consider what is left out. We do not have drama, sport or—I must say this in my present role—arts programmes.

Mr. Corbett: That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fault.

Mr. Mellor: Let us not forget entertainment programmes. We are, after all, talking about a popular channel which must contain entertainment and all the programmes that some people do not like to acknowledge—[Interruption.] Some people do not want to acknowledge that millions of our citizens watch television for entertainment purposes. They do not always want to look at educational programmes.
Nobody is ever anxious, particularly at this stage of a parliamentary Session, to have, in effect, another parliamentary stage of a Bill, asking the Lords to accept our reversal of what they have done. Had it been possible honourably to accept the amendment, there would have been a compelling case, at least on business management grounds, for doing so.
I urge hon. Members who might be minded to object to what we are doing tonight to consider whether we could prefer another three subjects. Although I appreciate that there is no Rubicon of principle—we crossed that when we inserted children's programmes and religion—it is a bit perverse to say that we should have documentaries but not drama, social action but not sport, education but not arts programmes. It reflects value judgments that are understandable but are not objectively valid. Because of that, the only alternative would be to add even more items to the now quite long list contained in the Bill as it has returned from the other place. The danger then would be that one would be purporting to define what a diverse service should be.
I recall, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the time when we were jointly dismissing the idea of a laundry list in relation to changes in the obscenity legislation.

Mr. Corbett: I recall that well.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is on good form tonight and I look forward to his speech.
A list of programme types runs the risk of narrowing the range of options that would be available on Channel 3. I do not want to speak at greater length, but that is the only reason why I am inviting the House to disagree with the amendment. We are entitled to take some pride in what we achieved in our debates. If there had been a glaring omission of the type that we are discussing, we might ourselves have spotted it—[Interruption.] I appreciate that some hon. Members were unhappy about some of what we did, but I doubt whether many would have chosen the list that is before us or whether they did not, by the end of our debates, feel that the quality threshold had been thickened up and that the pressure on applicants was such that we could start with the range of programmes.
Whatever hon. Members may feel about protecting certain types of programmes, I hope that they would not wish to commend the other limb of the amendment, which is about the time they should be shown. We had to be realistic during the passage of the Bill. We had to recognise that in the more competitive situation of the 1990s, it was right, with other channels coming on stream, that broadcasters should have the flexibility to schedule. If we have confidence in some of our fellow men, then many of the programmes in the lists that are before us are popular enough to be shown at peak times. But we must allow the

schedulers the opportunity to schedule in what will be a competitive market and in a situation where they must be commercial.
Although it is not my main reason for wishing to delete the amendment, its policy intention was that programmes that might attract smaller audiences should have the opportunity to secure a place in peak viewing time. But the amendment, because of the way it is drafted, suggests that programmes should be shown at appropriate times having regard to the potential viewers of programmes of that type, and that might mean that a high audience programme would be scheduled at peak time and a lower audience programme scheduled at off-peak hours. That is probably the opposite to what those who proposed the amendment intended.
I do not give that as a central reason for objecting to the amendment. If it had not been otherwise flawed, we could have further amended it. But it is another good reason why I can suggest that we are not in any sense diminishing what I believe to be the clear remit for Channel 3—for the new companies to pick up where the others left off and to have a wide range of programmings.
The effect of keeping the amendment would be, for no good or proper grounds, to appear to be preferring certain programme types to others. I have given six examples, three in and three out, and I defy anyone to say that there is any logical distinction in preferring the three that have been preferred to the other three—when the danger of even adding the other three would be a list that purports to define diversity in a way that narrows, rather than broadens, the programme types that are likely to be found. On that limited but persuasive ground, I invite the House to disagree to the amendment.

Mr. Corbett: We were saddened to read inThe Times this morning that the Minister for the Arts, so lately in office, is anxious to demonstrate that there is life outside politics. I hope that he will stay with us at least until the Bill has completed this stage of its passage.
If I should ever write about my time in this place—or, in the context of this debate, should I ever fund a very low-budget video—I shall call it, "It's a funny way to earn a living." I say that because not many minutes ago the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and others said that, on occasions, members of another place knew more than we did about public opinion and matters concerning the populace. Coincidentally, it suited the hon. Gentleman's argument to say that.
I shall be surprised to get it, but I am expecting some consistency on the amendments because it can be said that the House of Lords, in respect of the further must-carry obligations, reflects a central matter of concern that lies at the heart of the Bill—the quality threshold. The Government set enormous store by the quality threshold when we had the trailer for the Bill as long ago as November 1988 and have done so ever since. I remember the Minister telling us on several occasions that it was precisely that quality threshold that would ensure that what had happened to Australian television would not and could not happen here.
In Australia, as we discuss the amendments, two out of three of the national channels are in the hands of receivers. Channel 10 will tomorrow sack 500 staff at all levels and switch to greater use of imported American material, precisely because those to whom that licence was sold funded their bids with funny money and junk bonds, and


got into enormous debt. As a consequence, that channel and Channel 9 are both wrecks. Down the road a little in New Zealand, the only commercial channel is in the hands of receivers.
Ministers have said that the new ITV network regime on Channel 3 will be a notch below what we now have. That nice George Russell, the chairman designate of the ITC, asserts that it will be 80 per cent. of what we have now. There is no argument between us that some types of programming that viewers have become used to seeing, especially those at peak times, will no longer be there to choose from. What matters and lies behind the all-party concerns reflected in the Lords amendments is which type of programmes are likely to be more at risk.
The fact that the Government want to remove the additions to the so-called quality threshold gives the game away. It is precisely programmes in the sectors specified by the amendments—documentaries, programmes with an educational purpose and social action programmes—that the accountants and advertisers who will control the Channel 3 licences will put most at risk.
Documentaries will be put more at risk because they are often more expensive to make in terms of research, travel and production costs, and because things do not always work out as planned in the course of making them. Shows that are tightly scripted and shot in studios are much more controllable in terms of costs and their outcome is certainly more predictable.
Education and social action programmes are at risk for another reason. Shown in peak time slots, the better to attract large audiences, they may well not produce the type of audience that advertisers want at those times. Those are the hard-nosed commercial judgments that will be made by the schedulers.
As I think the House understands, programme timing is critical to audience size, as is the channel on which a programme is shown. For example, programmes of an educational nature on the environment and third-world issues, screened at peak hours on BBC 1 or networked on ITV, command audiences of between 2 million and 5 million. Exactly the same programme shown on BBC 2 or Channel 4 at similar times attracts a much lower audience of about I million. Therefore, unless it is specified that such programmes must be shown and at appropriate times of the day and week, they will be unprotected in an increasingly competitive television world and much more at risk than now.
The Minister repeated tonight that he does not want any sort of laundry list. I must remind him that it was he who started to write it.

Mr. Mellor: I accept that.

Mr. Corbett: I know that he accepts that. He started to write it when he was persuaded, against a background of all-party pressure, to retain the must-carry obligations in respect of children's programmes and later religious programmes. I remember the night when we debated that because there was a bad storm and thunderbolts were bouncing off the roof above the room in which we were meeting. We are talking not about laundry lists, but simply about their length.
The Minister said again tonight that there is no need to put such matters in the Bill because the ITC will issue illustrative guidelines on the programme range and type that it expects bidders to provide.
With respect, illustrative guidelines do not have the same force as quality threshold requirements, as he and the House well know. In this context, the important point is that if it is not in the Bill, accountants will be able to say, "Yes, we understand, Mr. or Mrs. Programme Maker, what you are saying, but we simply cannot afford them," or, "We want that slot for a different type of programme because it will deliver a different kind of audience at that time, and one that the advertiser wants."

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman twitted me a moment ago about consistency. In the previous debate the Opposition said that nothing was needed in the Bill because guidelines would be sufficient. Now they are apparently standing that on its head and saying that the guidelines are not sufficient, we cannot trust the broadcasters, so the matter must be specified in the Bill.

Mr. Corbett: We are all sharp tonight. I generously acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but we cannot treat all fish in the sea as being of exactly the same kind, weight and importance.
The Minister said earlier, although he did not use these exact words tonight, that if there is public demand for such programmes, they will have to be provided. There is no evidence for that assertion. On the basis of experience elsewhere, all the evidence points exactly the other way. There is evidence from France, what was lately West Germany, and Italy, which all started on this three or four years before we did, that in a deregulated climate exactly the opposite happens. The effect of deregulation in those countries has been a dramatic fall in the number of factually based programmes and a rise in those that are primarily entertainment led to meet commercial needs and advertisers' demands.
I shall quickly tell the House that in terms of viewer demand—what viewers want—the IBA attitudes to television survey in 1989 showed that an astonishing 66 people out of every 100 wanted more nature and wildlife programmes, 55 out of every 100 wanted more educational programmes for adults and 55 per cent. wanted more plays and dramas. Some 42 out of every 100 viewers wanted fewer quiz shows and panel games, 43 per cent. wanted fewer chat shows and an astounding one viewer in two wanted fewer soap operas. That is exactly the opposite of what we suspect is likely to happen. I am trying not to make judgments because such programmes have a place on the menu, but I am trying to make the point to the Minister that so do other programmes, especially those specified in the Lords amendments.
One of the saddest aspects of Australian television—I probably watch more of it there than I do here—is that it is the only publicly funded, multi-cultural, special broadcasting service channel that provides anything like a decent, nightly, international and national news programme, and very well done it is too, and documentaries. That is the reality of what can happen in such a climate.
The Minister may recall that he described the quality threshold—I think that there was some dispute as to whether it was the Minister or that nice George Russell who used the phrase initially—as a "Becher's Brook". That Grand National jump got its name because Captain Becher dashed into the lead at the start on his horse Conrad, charged at the first brook, was dumped on the ground and hence gave his name to that jump. That is


what we fear about the quality threshold. We want it to be high, wide and firm, with every intending rider forced to jump well clear.
The Government—and we agree with them—say that we want an active democracy and an informed electorate. If they are serious about wanting more citizens to be active citizens, they must realise that that will not happen unless television plays its part in helping it to happen. That is what makes this type of programme so important.
Our former colleague, Mr. Alf Dubs, the distinguished director of the Refugee Council, puts it this way:
television has a vital role to play in raising people's awareness of the particular problems facing developing countries. It can also make people think more about situations nearer home, and can highlight social issues.
The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education tells us:
The Government recognises that Britain needs a much greater commitment to re-skilling its workforce, and ITV has shown an ability to persuade people who have had no contact with education and training since school to follow up programmes with active study. This is a resource too precious to jeopardise.
I hope that no hon. Member would disagree.
Age Concern tells us:
Television and radio play an important part in enabling organisations such as Age Concern England to maintain and develop communication with older people.
That is profoundly important.
In our ageing society, communication through the media is likely to become even more important, especially for those older people who are isolated and housebound.
I hope that no hon. Member would condemn housebound
and often lonely people to a diet of wall-to-wall game shows and chat shows such as the Bill threatens.

Mr. Mellor: I do not want to prolong this debate but, by reading out those submissions, the hon. Gentleman is proceeding as if we were dealing here with the only television channel. My primary point is that I believe that no one will cross the quality threshold who does not have a full range of programmes. In public service television we have BBC 1 and BBC 2, and Channel 4 with its specific remit, so I wonder whether some of those points are not seriously overstated.

Mr. Corbett: I understand that, but the Minister seems to overlook the fact that the must-carry obligations were imposed first on the BBC and then on the new independent television stations, and that is what enables us to stand up and assert that our television system is, if not the best in the world, certainly among the best in the world. That did not happen by accident. It happened because we required those responsible for running the commercial television network to carry out some of those basic functions.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I think that the Minister is trying to say that he does not want competition on quality. He wants a channel that might be regarded by, say, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) as a trash channel.

Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend makes the point well.
I shall finish by explaining what puzzles me about the Government's attitude. We have laws and speed limits to try to reduce accidents on our roads. We insist that every child goes to school for 11 years from the age of five. We say who can and who cannot drink alcohol and what can

and what cannot be done with our processed food. Yet when it comes to television it seems that the Government say that there is no need for any guidance to those responsible for our television on what viewers should be able to see, for our national well-being and advancement. I find it unacceptable to claim that providing a lead in television is less important than it is in other areas in which the law touches on the lives of every citizen.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) in favour of the Lords amendment, and wish to speak to my two modest amendments to it. The Minister will not be surprised by them; they are consistent with everything that I said in Committe and are designed to remind everyone that when we speak of regional television on Channel 3, in the Principality and in Scotland we are also talking about nationhood and the national culture. I wish to remind everyone that the term "regional" is not a wholly accurate description of the role of Channel 3 in the Principality. It will have a responsibility to reflect a national culture as well as regional interests.
My amendments will be irrelevant if we lose the Lords amendment. In the past the Minister has been the flexible friend of the House during the passage of this Bill, so I do not understand why he is being so stiff-necked about these propositions. After all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington reminded him, we have added to the list. I supported the inclusion of children's and religious programmes, but I had little doubt that the Channel 3 producers would broadcast children's programmes—they are popular and would therefore be a normal part of any programme diet. But we still felt the need to reinforce their inclusion. I think it even more important to give statutory buttressing to the inclusion of education.
The Minister intervened earlier to say that we have BBC 1, BBC 2 and Channel 4; and, in the Principality, S4C. But for many groups of people in the communities that I represent the commercial Channel 3 is the major television station; indeed, it is watched by the overwhelming majority. So the claim that because we have those other channels we do not need to impose an educational responsibility on Channel 3 is an invalid argument. A mainstream commercial channel should have a statutory responsibility to provide education.
When speaking about how strong the diversity test will be and how the ITC will apply it, the Minister fallaciously argued that if we include education we should also have to include sport and drama. No one believes that sport will not be included in Channel 3 programming. We all know that there will be a lot of sport—too much in the view of many people. No one is worried that a commercial television station will not carry sport. However, under the pressures of costs and savings there may be genuine doubts whether, unless there is a clear obligation on commercial television to continue to run educational programmes, it will do so.
Wherever we stand in the great education and training debate there is a consensus among all parties that education and training arrangements in this country are appallingly poor. We should not turn our backs on one significant means of communicating important educational and training messages to large groups of people, particularly younger people.
There is another reason why we must impose statutory obligations in respect of education. There are already tell-tale signs that, in view of projected declining advertising revenues in the 1990s, accountants, not programme makers, will start to rule our commercial television programmes. Any doubts that I had about that being a strong possibility have been dispelled because even since the Bill was last debated there is manifest evidence of it occurring on the Welsh television scene.
I hope that the Minister will be alarmed to hear about what has happened in the last week or two. All of us, including the Minister, paid tribute to Welsh television and worked together to try to make sure that S4C'c role and remit in the Bill was assured and buttressed. Its revenues depend entirely on advertising and, as it foresees a future decline in those, it has dropped a bombshell on the Welsh television scene. Last week it announced that in the first six months of 1991 it will commission only £13 million worth of programmes. It commissions programmes from HTV and the Welsh independent sector, and the cut means that they will get just £6·5 million each.
8.30 pm
The independent sector has flourished as a result of the development of S4C, and HTV has had a significant and important programme-making capacity to meet its demands and needs. Last year S4C commissioned about £40-million worth of programmes. The reduction in demand from S4C will have a dramatic effect. In February or March, S4C may feel capable of commissioning more programmes, but the shape of things to come can be seen in the effect that that announcement has had on the development of programme making in the Principality.
It is not alarmist or fanciful to express concern about the growing pressures of the 1990s. Financial pressures may develop in commercial television and we are worried about the amount of advertising revenue that will be available to Channel 3. There will also be takeover pressure in line with the new competitive spirit. As a consequence, accountants will tell the programme makers to cut everything except that for which they are statutorily responsible. The way in which S4C is revealing its problems to HTV and the independent sector about the commissioning of programmes next year because of worries about falling advertising revenue shows the shape of things to come in commercial television.
There is a powerful case for including in the Bill a statutory obligation requiring commercial television to provide education programmes. The Minister's arguments in that respect are not valid. We added children's programmes and we rightly added religious programmes and, given the climate in which commercial television will operate, it is important to send from the House the loud and clear message that Channel 3 has an educational role. The best and simplest way to do that is to support the amendments.

Mr. John Greenway: I sense that our deliberations are rather like old times, but one element is missing. It is sad that Norman Buchan is not with us, because he would certainly have taken part in the debate, as he took part in many of our debates in Committee.
As always, I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who developed compelling arguments about the situation in France and Australia. I entirely agree that that should give us great

cause for concern about the future of our commercial television channels. However, I am not sure that he drew the right conclusions. Arguments about what is happening in France and Australia go to the heart of why it was right to put in the Bill a proper bidding process which not only strengthens quality but discourages overbidding. It also ensures that business plans must be realistic if they are to have any chance of passing the ITC quality test and the business plan test, because within the Bill the two tests are quite separate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows that in Committee I argued vigorously for a strengthening of the quality threshold.
We should remind ourselves of three areas in which the Minister agreed to make some important changes to the tendering process. First, we should not forget the strengthening of regionality and of regional programming, which I know the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) also holds dear. Secondly, we must not forget about the strengthening of quality news and current affairs requirements in the bidding process. Thirdly, we added children's and religious programmes, which we felt had an overriding argument in their favour. We knew that by doing that we would encourage other special interest groups. Equally, we agreed that it was entirely unsatisfactory to provide a statutory requirement to broadcast a long and exhaustive list of programme types. To do so would completely undermine the objectives of deregulation, which in turn are based on a recognition of the commercial realities of the increased competition that Channel 3 and ITV will face over the next decade and into the next century.
Already in the past six months we have seen a reduction in advertising revenue, giving rise to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I have heard no new arguments in this debate or read about any in reports of the deliberations in the other place about why we should change our position on this. The Bill already requires diverse programmes. Equally, the programme types included in the amendments draw attention to the importance of such programmes. The Minister has drawn attention to that and, like him, I can think of other programmes that I should like to see on Channel 3. I should like to see not just sport, which is commercial, but arts programmes, which are often riot commercial. I should like to believe that, from time to time in the years ahead, I shall still be able to see opera on Channel 3. However, it is not right to insist upon a statutory requirement that Channel 3 should broadcast opera.

Mr. Mellor: I am enjoying my hon. Friend's speech. People will be set into a framework of existing provisions. Therefore, I am not relying purely on market forces for Channel 3. It is not without significance that BSB has already pinned much of its faith on opera for key viewing times, such as Saturday evenings. It is significant and rather encouraging that, since we last discussed these matters, Sky Television has announced quite serious plans for a dedicated arts channel. That suggests that the idea that the lowest common denominator of programming will rule is not necessarily correct.

Mr. Greenway: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I was about to make a different point—that, although companies must make a commercial judgment about what they show, it does not necessarily follow that


their support for, for example, the arts or opera need be through televising those events. They may well prefer to support them through sponsorship. Yorkshire Television has sponsored two productions by Opera North. I am only sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend could not come to see the recent revival of La Traviata. Yorkshire Television provides sponsorship for the commercial reason that it promotes the company in the region. However, it also does it to support the region. The regional structure, especially with Channel 3, should not be overlooked. If we place too many obligations on Channel 3 franchisees, we may put in their path requirements that, over time, they cannot match. Sponsorship could be one way to ensure that the sort of social action programmes to which the hon. Member for Erdington referred, and about which we all have strong views, continue.
The House should recognise that programming obligations must be matched by commercial reality. If we cannot—and we cannot—guarantee Channel 3's income or its financial future, we must be careful not to saddle ITV with statutory obligations that it cannot realistically underwrite over the next 10 to 20 years—which is the timescale legislated for in the Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it does not mean the end of programmes. The market place can provide quality and diversity. ITV needs flexibility, and the Bill, as drafted when it left this place, provided that. We would be wrong to over-egg the pudding. We have provided for the essential ingredients; we should trust independent television to add the relish. I know that it can.

Mr. Maclennan: I think that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), in the last moments of his speech, underlined our concerns that lead us to think that their Lordships made a wise move. He spoke of the difficulty for companies, in years to come, in meeting the requirement of diversity in the way that the Minister assured us he was confident they could. I suspect that none of us could predict with great accuracy what will be the financial position of those companies in three years, let alone 10 to 20 years.
I take issue with the Minister who, in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), said that we should not overlook other matters, such as the special remit of Channel 4, the BBC's role and so on. We must be wary of that argument, because it is clear that that cornerstone of broadcasting, the BBC, is increasingly under attack, as it was attacked in our earlier debate.
One of the sticks that will be used to beat the BBC is ratings. If it broadcasts programmes to satisfy the diversity requirement—for example, educational, social action, and expensive documentary programmes—which may be of high quality but directed at a specialist audience, and therefore not attracting substantial ratings, that will be taken as a sign of weakness, and the BBC may feel that it must respond to the ratings criticism. I fear that the whole atmosphere in which programme making, even by the BBC, is developing may be changed if the ITV channels move down market.
We spent a great deal of time discussing these issues at earlier stages of the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Ryedale was right to say that there are few new arguments to be deployed at this stage. However, the Minister cannot

complain about our taking issue with him when the other place thought it right to change the balance of the Bill and the balance of the protections. We listen to its arguments, we weigh them and then we decide whether we think that it is right. I was one of those least attracted to the original concept of specification. If we specify programme content to ensure diversity, the question will arise whether that is a requirement. If it is, other programmes that are not specified will be dropped.
8.45 pm
The Minister earlier admitted that it was he who accepted the view that religious broadcasting and children's programmes should be specified. Once that happened, I took the view that certain other matters also had to be specified because they were vulnerable to the sort of arguments that I have already made. They are also vulnerable because they are distinguishable from other programmes in that they are expensive, and quite properly directed to small audiences. The Minister talked about excluding the arts. I advocated special treatment for the arts and the creation of an arts fund. However, I recognise that, even if we specified the arts, only a small audience would be interested in a particular art form. We cannot specify all the arts, so it is difficult to argue for arts specification.
The three matters highlighted for specification by another place are important and beyond argument. Social action programmes have been one of the great innovations in television broadcasting and have achieved something that could not be achieved by other means. They would be difficult to justify in commercial terms, so without some sort of obligation they might be the most vulnerable. Educational programmes are enormously important, and would probably be the last to disappear. They can attract substantial audiences, and there is a great and growing public demand for them. Documentaries are another matter because they can be exceedingly expensive to make, especially if they are shot abroad. It would be a great misfortune if they were to disappear from our screens.
I throw my weight behind the arguments deployed in another place. I have highlighted the dangers that might arise if we rejected the amendment, which I believe improves the Bill.

Mr. Walden: I want to make an intervention of nauseating piety but merciful brevity. Much of what I wanted to say has been said by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), with his Celtic fluency.
It is ironic that this country is going through a crisis in educational quality, while knowingly passing legislation that will, in all probability, lead to a decline in the educative aspect of parts of television. If we are being honest, we all agree with that. There was a flagrant contradiction in the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said that, in all commercial realism, it could be difficult to pay for quality programmes if one did not have enough popular programmes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister appeared to agree with him, even though he had said two minutes earlier that things were not as bad as they looked and that we would

 be seeing a lot of opera. It is permissible to have some intellectual doubt about the possibility of reconciling those two views.
I repeat that it seems to me perfectly possible to suspect that we are in the process of passing legislation that will not only run down the quality, such as it is, of our commercial television but—as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out—will probably, in time, affect the quality, such as it is, of the BBC. I am not being a Jeremiah; those effects may take time and they may be difficult to pin down. Nevertheless, it is possible to take that view, and a lot of extremely intelligent and thoughtful people outside the House do, indeed, take that view.
In terms of education, there is an increasingly close relationship between what is broadcast and what is taught in the classroom. Let me give my right hon. and learned Friend an example. I should be interested to know whether he has been in touch with the Department of Education and Science about the amendment. If he, like me, had had the misfortune to read some of the new GCSE examinations in English literature, he would know that, to a certain extent, they are based on piddling and banal television film scripts. That is the nature of the new world in which we live, and it is the subject of another debate. But given that those film scripts are used in our examinations, and used in our schools, as texts to be "studied", it will be a sad day for education if we do anything in the Bill to make them more piddling and banal than they are already.
Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend can assure me that he has been in touch with the Department of Education and Science and that these matters have been given the thought that they deserve. But I beg leave to express some doubts about whether that is so, and to be not pessimistic but absolutely realistic about the risks that we shall be running in the Bill if we do not do whatever we can to use the sticking plaster—that is all it is—that the amendments represent. We shall not save the day, after all, by naming three subjects. The only case for naming them is that we may thus do something to head off what I regard as an inevitable decline in quality, which will have repercussions for the BBC and, indirectly, for our education system.

Mr. Mellor: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) knows that I am enormously fond of him and that I agree with his views on almost everything. I even partially agree with some of the views that he has expressed from time to time on this issue, as I hope has been evidenced by what has happened during our proceedings on the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that he is over-pessimistic.
I know that, in the end, it comes down to a matter of judgment. Honourable people of insight will come down on one side or the other of the argument. There are no absolutes in the matter, and I do not think that there is much room for further persuasion. But the new television channels that are completely free of any statutory intervention in terms of what they show have not proved the pessimists right. It is true that one of Sky's channels shows quite a lot of repeats, but that is also true of the BBC. Sky News is a quality product, however, and it is interesting to note that Sky is also contemplating a dedicated arts channel.
I profoundly hope that BSB will be a success. So much of its programming is based on quality. It shows many arts programmes. It has recognised that a large proportion of the public have told the pollsters that there is nothing on telly when they want to watch it, and on Saturday nights—a bit of a desert for quite a lot of us—it will be showing opera. I hope that that is a bold venture. On Saturday and Sunday afternoons, BSB wants to show children's programmes—proper programmes that it has commissioned itself. In other words, the truly commercial sector is not looking merely for re-runs of aged American soaps to pull in the viewers. It recognises that the viewers are a bit more discriminating than that.
With ITV, I believe that there is something worth preserving, although one must not join the broadcasters in total self-congratulatory complacency about the quality of British television. One hears enough of that when one goes to the awards ceremonies. I shall miss them, of course, even if I noticed that there was a bit of self-congratulation around. Nevertheless, ITV gives us some television that is well worth preserving, and I believe that the Bill will preserve it. It is a matter of argument whether it would be better preserved if we added the list in the amendment. I hope that the House will accept that I have no ulterior motive for rejecting the list beyond believing that the diversity test, the quality threshold and the pretty clear steer that the ITV will get from the ITC will be sufficient. I hope that they will be enough to see the ITV network through the next 10 years and beyond.
I must accept the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), that the commercial element of commercial television is not an optional extra. We said that time without number during the Committee stage. Commercial television is a commercial venture or it is nothing. The programming arrangements will only be threatened if the bottom drops out of the commercial market for commercial television. If that happens, no power on earth will save the programmes—whether or not they are enshrined in statute. Perhaps if we accepted all the Lords amendments—including the programming amendment—we should make it more difficult for Channel 3 to flourish because we might tie it down to a scheduling remit that it could not fulfil.
One is entitled to ask, "Why have a public service broadcaster if that public service broadcaster is not there to produce programmes of a very different kind from those which are available elsewhere?" I think that we can go further and that we can have a viable Channel 4—indeed, we have one now—and a Channel 3 that is properly diverse. There is every chance of keeping all those balls in the air, but I do not think that the Lords amendment would help us to achieve that aim. For that reason—I am sorry that it will also have the unintended consequence of destroying the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—I hope that the House will agree that it is perfectly proper, and probably in the long-term best interests of quality television, that we should reject the amendments.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 92.

Division No. 343]
[8. 57 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Amess, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, James






Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)
Gorst, John


Ashby, David
Grant, Sir Anthony(CambsSW)


Atkinson, David
Greenway, John(Ryedale)


Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)
Gregory, Conal


Banks, Robert(Harrogate)
Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)


Bendall, Vivian
Grist, Ian


Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)
Hague, William


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hannam, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')


Body, Sir Richard
Hargreaves, Ken(Hyndburn)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harris, David


Boswell, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Bowden, A(Brighton K'pto'n)
Hayes, Jerry


Bowden, Gerald(Dulwich)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowis, John
Hayward, Robert


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Mrs Maureen(Wolv' NE)


Bright, Graham
Hicks, Robert(Cornwall SE)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Browne, John(Winchester)
Hill, James


Bruce, Ian(Dorset South)
Hind, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Howarth, Alan(Strat'd-on-A)


Burns, Simon
Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Burt, Alistair
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Howell, Ralph(North Norfolk)


Butler, Chris
Hunt, David(Wirral W)


Butterfill, John
Hunt, Sir John(Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, John,(Luton N)
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Irvine, Michael


Carr, Michael
Irving, Sir Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Cash, William
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Dr Michael(Rochford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Colvin, Michael
Key, Robert


Conway, Derek
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon(Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Greg(Derby North)


Curry, David
Knight, Dame Jill(Edgbaston)


Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knowles, Michael


Davis, David(Boothferry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Day, Stephen
Lee, John(Pendle)


Devlin, Tim
Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)


Dicks, Terry
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Sir Ian(Havant)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Lord, Michael


Evans, David(Welwyn Hatf'd)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Evennett, David
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
Madel, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Major, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry(Isle of Wight)
Malins, Humfrey


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mans, Keith


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maples, John


Fookes, Dame Janet
Marland, Paul


Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Tony


Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)
Marshall, John(Hendon S)


Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)
Martin, David(Portsmouth S)


Forth, Eric
Mates, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


French, Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fry, Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Mellor, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Roger





Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Monro, Sir Hector
Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morris, M(N'hampton S)
Speed, Keith


Morrison, Sir Charles
Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)


Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moss, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony


Mudd, David
Stern, Michael


Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Lewis


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stokes, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David(Taunton)
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, Emma(Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)


Page, Richard
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Porter, David(Waveney)
Trimble, David


Powell, William(Corby)
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, Charles(Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion s'
Wheeler, Sir John


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Ryder, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilkinson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Nicholas


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David(Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shelton, Sir William
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)



Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)
Sir George Young and Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Shersby, Michael





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fisher, Mark


Allen, Graham
Foster, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Fraser, John


Banks, Tony(Newham NW)
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)
Garrett, Ted(Wallsend)


Battle, John
George, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley, Keith
Hinchliffe, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoey, Ms Kate(Vauxhall)


Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)
Hogg, N.(C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ron(Blyth Valley)
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, John(Coventry NE)


Carlile, Alex(Mont'g)
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Dr David(S Shields)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ron


Corbett, Robin
Livingstone, Ken


Corbyn, Jeremy
Livsey, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
McAllion, John


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alistair
McLeish, Henry


Davis, Terry(B'ham Hodge H'l)
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max


Evans, John(St Helens N)
Marshall, David(Shettleston)


Faulds, Andrew
Meale, Alan






Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)


Michie, Mrs Ray(Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, Rt Hon J.(Monk'ds E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Thompson, Jack(Wansbeck)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walden, George


Pike, Peter L.
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray(Ogmore)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Richardson, Jo
Young, David(Bolton SE)


Rooker, Jeff



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Clare
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Allen McKay.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 48 disagreed to.

New Clause

NETWORKING ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN HOLDERS OF REGIONAL CHANNEL 3 LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 111, after clause 34, insert the following new clause—

(".—(1) This section has effect with respect to the making of arrangements which—
(a) apply to all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences, and
(b) provide for programmes made, commissioned or acquired by or on behalf of one or more of the holders of such licences to be available for broadcasting in all regional Channel 3 services,
being arrangements made for the purpose of enabling regional Channel 3 services (taken as a whole) to be a nationwide system of such services which is able to compete effectively with other television programme services provided in the United Kingdom; and any such arrangements are referred to in this section as "networking arrangements".

(2) Any application for a regional Channel 3 licence shall, in addition to being accompanied by any such proposals as are mentioned in section 15(3)(b) to (d), be accompanied by the applicant's proposals for participating in networking arrangements made under this section; and—
(a) where a person has duly made such an application, the Commission—
(i) shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the closing date for applications for the licence, send details of his proposals for participating in such arrangements to the Director General of Fair Trading, and
(ii) (without prejudice to the operation of section 16(1)) shall not proceed to consider whether to award him the licence as mentioned in that provision unless it appears to the Commission that any such proposals are satisfactory; and
(b) section(Conditions requiring holder of Channel 3 or 5 licence to deliver promised service) shall apply to any such proposals as it applies to the proposals submitted by the applicant under section 15(3)(bb) to (d).

(3) The Commission may publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, general guidance to applicants for a regional Channel 3 licence as to the kinds of proposals which they would consider satisfactory for the purposes of subsection (2)(a); but before doing so the Commission—
(a) shall consult the Director General of Fair Trading, and
(b) if he requests them to make any change in the guidance, shall incorporate the change in the guidance.

(4) Each regional Channel 3 licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to do all that he can to secure—
(a) (in the case of a licence granted before the relevant date) that, by that date, networking arrangements have been made which—

(i) have been entered into by all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences, and
(ii) have been approved by the Commission; and
(b) (in any case) that, so long as he provides his licensed service, there are in force networking arrangements which have been so entered into and approved (unless there are for the time being in force any arrangements made by the Commission under subsection (5)).

(5) If—
(a) no such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (4)(a) are made by the relevant date, or
(b) any such arrangements are so made but cease to be in force at any time before 1st January 1995,
the Commission may themselves draw up such networking arrangements as they consider appropriate; and, if they do so—
(i) they shall notify all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences of those arrangements, and
(ii) those arrangements shall (subject to subsection (6)) come into force on a date determined by the Commission.
and each regional Channel 3 licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to give effect to any arrangements made by the Commission under this subsection as for the time being in force.

(6) No arrangements made by the Commission under subsection (5) shall come into force at any time after 31st December 1994.

(7) Where—
(a) any such arrangements have come into force in accordance with subsection (6), but
(b) any networking arrangements are subsequently—
(i) entered into by all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences, and
(ii) approved by the Commission,
the arrangements referred to in paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect on the coming into force of the arrangements referred to in paragraph (b).

(8) Where any arrangements have been approved by the Commission under subsection (4) or (7)(b), no modification of those arrangements shall be made by the holders of regional Channel 3 licences unless it too has been so approved.
(9) Where any arrangements have been made by the Commission under subsection (5), they may (whether before or after the date specified in subsection (6)) make such modification of those arrangements as they consider appropriate; and, if they do so—
(a) they shall notify all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences of the modification, and
(b) the modification shall come into force on a date determined by the Commission.

(10) Without prejudice to the generality of their power to refuse to approve any arrangements or modification under subsection (4), (7)(b) or (8), the Commission shall refuse to do so if they are not satisfied that the arrangements in question, or (as the case may be) those arrangements as proposed to be modified, would be appropriate for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1).

(11) Where the Commission have—
(a) approved any arrangements or modification under subsection (4), (7)(b) or (8), or
(b) given with respect to any arrangements or modification the notification required by subsection (5)(i) or (9)(a),
they shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after giving their approval or (as the case may be) that notification—
(i) publish details of the arrangements or modification in such manner as they consider appropriate, and
(ii) comply with the appropriate requirement specified in subsection (12)(a) or (b).

(12) The appropriate requirement referred to in paragraph (ii) of subsection (11) is—
(a) in the case of any such arrangements as are referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, to refer those arrangements to the Director General of Fair Trading, and
(b) in the case of any such modification as is so referred to, to inform him of that modification;


and Schedule(References with respect to networking arrangements) to this Act shall have effect with respect to any reference made under paragraph (a) above and matters arising out of any such reference, including the subsequent modification of the arrangements to which it relates.

(13) In this section "the relevant date" means the date which the Commission determine to be that by which any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (4) would need to have been made by the holders of regional Channel 3 licences in order for the arrangements to be fully in operation at the time when those persons begin to provide their licensed services.")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in subsection (5)(b) of the new clause, to leave out 'before 1st January 1995'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment (b) to the proposed amendment, to leave out subsection (6).
Lords amendments Nos. 440, 441 and 501.
I have to inform the House that Lords amendment No. 111 involves privilege.

Mr. Maclennan: I express my appreciation to the Minister for the amendment, which reflects decisions taken earlier in the light of the view expressed strongly in Committee that there should be a networking arrangement reinforced by statute so as to avoid the possibility of complete chaos when the franchises are awarded. There should be additional safeguards when new companies come in. I must express regret that the Government have not thought fit to make that a continuing obligation on the ITC. The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that the obligation to have in place a networking arrangement is a continuing one.
I take this opportunity of raising with the Minister points that have been put to me by the Campaign for Quality Television about the role of the Office of Fair Trading in the underpinning of the networking arrangement provided for by the Bill. That arrangement is set out in the schedule and referred to in the new clause. It has been expressed strongly, most notably in a speech by Mr. Richard Dunn of the Independent Television Companies Association at aFinancial Times conference, that there would be serious risks if the Office of Fair Trading were to be involved in the networking. The sort of competition criteria that might appeal to the Office of Fair Trading would not necessarily be the same criteria as would be in the mind of the ITC in putting forward its proposals. The purpose of the networking arrangements is to ensure that quality broadcasting is available across the board.
My noble Friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth said in another place that the difficulty with network arrangements in television is that
while there is not a conflict, there are often tensions pulling different ways between the most competitive system in the terms in which the OFT is bound to look at the matter and the system that provides the viewer with the best possibility of a rich variety of programming."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 1990; Vol. 522, c. 493.]
I am sure that the Minister has read Richard Dunn's speech and I hope that he will address the arguments that he made. They are serious arguments. We had some debate earlier about the appropriateness of bringing the Office of Fair Trading into the regulatory process. Some of us, particularly myself, moved amendments to seek to remove

the Office of Fair Trading from the oversight because that seemed to double the regulatory role. It would have taken away from the governors of the BBC their responsibility and, in this respect, would have reduced the role of the ITC. It is clear that the ITC can be overruled by the Office of Fair Trading according to the terms of the new clause. The House is entitled to an assurance that the carefully balanced quality provisions to which the Minister has devoted so much attention will not be damaged.

Mr. John Greenway: I have given notice to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of my intention to raise a matter that was raised in the other place by Lord Boston of Faversham. It relates to the matter just mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading. Lord Boston asked Lord Ferrers three questions; I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend would put on record the substance of Lord Ferrers's reply, which was given in a letter to Lord Boston on 18 October.
First, Lord Boston asked whether the OFT would play any role in the process of selecting applicants for ITV franchises. If it did, that would clearly undermine much of the work that we did in Committee to strengthen the tender procedure and to make it rather more transparent than it has been in the past. Secondly, would any unhelpful delay result from the OFT's involvement which might prove commercially damaging to ITV companies? Thirdly, what does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to do to ensure that, should the Director General of Fair Trading feel that the agreed network arrangement is uncompetitive, exemption from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 will be provided?
I think that the answers given in Lord Ferrers's letter are satisfactory, but it would be helpful if the House could be told—on the record—exactly what they are.

Mr. Corbett: Opposition Members are glad that the Government have honoured the earlier undertakings to give the ITC powers to establish a networking system. I do not think that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) required anything more than a slightly more detailed explanation from the Minister.
There is no argument about the fact that those who will be bidding for licences will need to know what kind of networking arrangement is in operation before they can make their bids. Will the Minister confirm that, at present, 10 of the 15 existing ITV companies have set up a body called Netco to make network programmes, and that five have said that they do not wish to make them—although one is in a bit of a dither whether to make them or not?
I understand that a safeguard exists in that, as at present, the tariff for network programmes will relate to ability to pay, measured by advertising take. I also understand—perhaps the Minister knows more about this than I do—that Netco has yet to agree on the volume of network programme hours, and on how they will be allocated.
That brings us to the question of the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading. One suggestion is that it should be based on what has happened over the past three years. That may be the point at which the OFT will start to take an immediate interest in the matter. Its job is to ensure that arrangements do not restrict, distort or prevent


competition. If it concluded—which it might do—that the formula of basing arrangements on the practice of the past three years breached some or all of its conditions, it could have a considerable impact on the arrangements. It could impose extra costs on network programmes and in turn cut the cash available for regional programmes. That could subsequently have an impact on the ability of regional Channel 3 licence holders to meet the so-called quality thresholds, by which the Minister sets so much store, as he reminded us again tonight.
People are puzzled as to why there is a need for two referees, who could find themselves using different sets of rules on the same pitch. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) questioned the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading. After all, the Government appoint the members of the ITC, and to that extent are right to trust its judgment. In another place, the Minister of State described the rules specified for the OFT as a mere formality. If it will simply be a matter of sending the OFT a letter and receiving one in return, there does not seem much point to it. If it is a formality, the OFT does not seem to have got the message because it has, I understand, already set up a special unit to deal with that aspect.
I am unclear also about the OFT's powers. If it does not like a proposal, will it write to that nice George Russell saying, "We don't like this proposal. Yours sincerely, OFT", or will it be able to prevent the proposed networking arrangement on the grounds specified?
Like any other business persons, ITC members must have regard to the competition rules, and in that sense they do not need a second reminder—a watchdog or a nanny peering over their shoulders, prompting them that in making commercial arrangements they must take competition law into account.
I hope that the Minister understands that competition must relate directly to the circumstances of a particular industry or trade, and that one concept cannot be wheeled round from shop to shop and be made to apply to all situations. That point is made by the Centre for Communication and Information Studies at the polytechnic of central London, which says:
In Germany, the Federal Cartel Office has a different regulatory policy towards broadcasting from that of the Federal Constitutional Court".
Perhaps we can learn something from the methods used in Germany, even at the risk of upsetting the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
Currently, in the independent television network system cost-effective, studio-made programmes such as "Coronation Street" and "Blind Date" subsidise more expensive programmes such as "World in Action", "First Tuesday" and "The South Bank Show". I mentioned "Blind Date" because in a media survey of Back-Bench Members, it came out as top of the pops. I share the fear that the OFT might prevent such a sensible arrangement which, although it may not fit any other industry, has served independent television well. Nevertheless, it may attract criticism from the OFT, which could weaken the Bill's quality provisions. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that none of the fears that I have expressed is well-founded.

Mr. Speaker: Mr.——

Mr. Mellor: Mellor, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that I had forgotten the name of the chap sitting opposite

me when I discovered that you, Mr. Speaker, had forgotten my name—but never mind. That serves me right for being cheeky.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was a temporary lapse

Mr. Mellor: We all grow older, Mr. Speaker. It is happening to me as well. At your age, Mr. Speaker, these things happen.
The House welcomed the Government's decision, announced during the passage of the Bill, that we should not rely purely on the commonsense position of there being a network, although obviously the ITV system could not operate without a network. However, because of continuing concern about the previous network and the cartel thereby created, because of what some regarded as the unconscionable amount of time that was being taken to get another network and because of dark suspicions that one or two people were delaying settling on the basis that the Bill would not address those issues, it seemed of the essence that the Bill should address those issues. They were discussed between Departments and we achieved an acceptable proposition, whereby for a transitional period there is a back-stop provision to allow a network arrangement to be imposed.
With respect to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), this is essentially a short-term problem and I do not think that we should be justified in giving the ITC the power to impose networking arrangements in the longer term. Although I have made it clear that, where it has a right to impose, it should do so with a firm hand, it would not be right for it to impose networking arrangements over a long period without going back to what I regard as a previous generation of regulation. It needs to regulate where it is necessary to do so, and where it is not necessary we should accept that the aim of the Bill is to remove restrictions.
I have always been concerned about the transitional period. Having decided that there should be intervention, the question arises of who should do it. I noticed a certain strand to the debate—I do not say this critically, but it is an observation worth making—of hon. Members regarding the OFT as rather a boring body and asking, "What has it got to do with this?" I see the OFT as a vital public watchdog. Whatever our political differences, we surely agree that the competition policy must be enforced by a strong independent body. If a body is given an overview on competition, although one wants to give primary responsibilities to the specific specialist regulator, one cannot push the OFT to one side. Much thought, which is reflected in the schedule that their Lordships were kind enough to accept, has gone into giving the OFT a role while not usurping the function of the ITC.
Paragraph 2 of Lords amendment No. 501 sets out the competition test. It makes it clear that the OFT's role is not a formality. If the circumstances arise, it must apply the competition test, which is based on the Competition Act 1980 and on paragraph 3 of article 85 of the EEC treaty. Arrangements satisfy the test if they do not have, or are not intended or likely to have
the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition in connection with any business activity in the United Kingdom.
If they do have such an effect, however, they can still satisfy the test if they
satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 3 of Article 85 of the E.E.C. Treaty.


That is inevitably complicated because EC law is involved, but that is the test that must be applied.
If the OFT finds that the networking arrangements fall foul of the test, paragraph 5 says that it must publish the report and send a copy to the director and to the nice Mr. Russell. He is not so described in the schedule; he is merely described as the ITC, but we know that that means the nice Mr. Russell. Paragraph 6 requires the nice Mr. Russell to ensure that, under licensed conditions, the licensees modify the arrangements in accordance with the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Before giving way to the chap whose name I forgot, I should say that the nice Mr. Russell is 55 years old today, so perhaps somewhat belatedly we should send him happy birthday wishes.

Mr. Corbett: I willingly join the Minister in extending happy birthday wishes to that nice Mr. Russell.
Can the Minister give the House an assurance that, in looking at the proposed networking arrangements, he will look at the specific needs and requirements of the industry against the general background of the OFT's requirements rather than use a blanket approach? That is the point in a nutshell.

Mr. Mellor: The OFT has to apply a competition test that relates to the industry under consideration. That may be why it is necessary for someone to have some specialist awareness within the OFT. I appreciate that it is possible to criticize those arrangements. Obviously, it is possible to criticize any arrangement. If we isolated the OFT, people would ask, "What is the point of having a competition body such as the OFT and pushing it to one side, not giving it a role even though specialist competition issues are involved?"
Our starting point is the fact that, had we not made any of those provisions, the networking arrangements would have been caught by the restrictive trade practices legislation, under which the Director General of Fair Trading and the restrictive trade practices court have a role. The Bill is permissive because it exempts approved networking arrangements from those provisions to ensure that they do not unnecessarily constrain the development of a network. We thought that it would be unjustifiable if, at the same time as removing the provisions of the restrictive trade practices legislation from this area, we also removed the role of the DGFT, particularly bearing in mind his wider competition responsibilities, which I mentioned.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned the Netcom proposals. I understand that they are still under discussion by the ITV companies. As far as I am aware, they have not yet been agreed or approved by the IBA. I understand that the chairman of the ITV association may be having informal discussions with the OFT. That is the process that would have to be followed through.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned some comments that Lord Boston made in another place, which were the subject of a letter from my esteemed colleague, Lord Ferrers. I shall deal briefly with that matter, but I shall happily let my hon. Friend have a copy of the letter. Three points were raised,

the first of which concerned applicants' proposals for participating in networking being sent to the Director General of Fair Trading. He certainly will not play any part in the selection process for applicants for a Channel 3 licence, which I think was Lord Boston's concern. Lord Boston was concerned also about delay because of OFT approval. I repeat Lord Ferrers' assurance that there is no need for any delay. The ITC will have to refer networking arrangements to the OFT, but they can be implemented pending OFT consideration, so there should not be any delay.
There was concern that the competition test went a bit too wide. I set out what the test is. Lord Boston suggested that this should be restricted to the provision of licensed services and services connected with them. Lord Ferrers' view was that, in practice, that is probably how it will work out. That was his judgment on advice. It is unlikely that any networking arrangements will have any outside effects. In so far as they do, it is probably right that the OFT should be able to take them into consideration, but that is an unlikely proposition.
I have done my best to respond positively. I feel that in agreeing with the Lords amendments—as I hope we shall—we are closing what some people at the beginning thought was a major gap in the Bill because no provision was made for imposing a networking arrangement. I am glad to have played a part in ensuring that that should happen. What we have done is in accordance with the spirit of the Bill, doing what is necessary, but not doing more than is necessary.

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Clause 164

DUTY TO PROVIDE ADVANCE INFORMATION ABOUT PROGRAMMES

Lords amendment: No. 399, in page 127, line 43, leave out ("schedules of and other")

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 400 to 406, 641 to 649 and 675.

Mr. Mellor: The substantive amendments relate to the extent of the information that broadcasters will have to make available and to the timing of the release of that information. Lords amendment No. 401, in most people's view, is the lead amendment in the group. It requires broadcasters to make information available at such a time as a publisher "reasonably requires it" and to make it available to all publishers simultaneously. However, broadcasters will not be required to make available a complete schedule for any one-week period more than 14 days before the first day of that week. The 14-day limit can be varied by order.
Concern was expressed in Committee that some organisations with both television and newspaper interests might want to take some competitive advantage by getting hold of somebody else's schedule and then rescheduling their own programmes to meet it. The 14-day period is the


lowest possible lead time for a weekly magazine for the public dealing with listings on a week-long basis. It is a tight but fair target, which will protect the broadcasters' interests and, at the same time, allow a long overdue reform—the opportunity for freely available information about programme listings subject, of course, to proper negotiations about a payment for copyrighted material.

Mr. Corbett: I am sure that the Minister will be able to clear up a couple of small points, especially as the letter of which I have a copy was sent from his office. Will he confirm that there is no obligation on broadcasters to supply television listings information about programmes that are scheduled to be broadcast before 1 March 1991?

Mr. Mellor: indicated assent.

Mr. Corbett: I am glad that the Minister is able to do that.
The second point has also been raised with the Minister's office. Negotiations between the copyright holders of the listings can open from 1 January, although the listings cannot be published until after the first programme is running after 1 March. There are fears that not only rogue publishers, but French, Italian and German publishers with a big interest in this market may be tempted to jump the gun in the initial two months. If that happened, and in the absence of an agreement, what would be the position of the holders of the copyright?
Those of us who were members of the Committee will remember that there was great excitement about the next point. During the last sitting, the Minister found a relevant piece of paper in his red Dispatch Box to enable him to make some moves on listings. The House will he interested to know that Independent Television Publications Limited, which bought and holds the copyright to the ITV programmes, has made it clear that the proposal meets an expressed wish of Mr. Tony Elliott ofTime Out. ITP has decided to make the information available to publishers free of charge once an initial licence fee has been established and the publisher has been registered as a licensed user. That is a bold and sensible move.
I hope that the Minister can clarify the points that I have raised.

Mr. Simon Coombs: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of my appreciation of the way in which he has carried out the negotiations on this difficult matter and balanced the interests of publishers and copyright owners.
I believe that the House has now got it about right, but there are still some lingering fears among copyright owners, such as IPC Magazines, that the negotiations between themselves and publishers might be protracted and difficult. They believe that there might be a temptation on behalf of would-be publishers to try to delay settlement of the negotiations so as to obtain an unfair advantage from them. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has been in receipt of correspondence on this matter this week from IPC Magazines. It would be helpful if he could reassure those who have written to him to express their concern.
Once a copyright tribunal is established, such negotiations between copyright owners and publishers will be settled. It is inevitable that that tribunal would make a judgment on the responsible handling of the negotiations by the interested parties. The negotiations, however, might

be protracted and it is possible that the copyright owners will suffer a considerable commercial disadvantage. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to reassure them.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister will be aware that I share the concern that has already been expressed. I took an initiative on this matter earlier in our proceedings, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response then.

Mr. Mellor: I agree with the first proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about people jumping the gun, but the situation is exactly the same as it would be if somebody purported to publish a rival magazine now. A copyright owner has a legal remedy, which includes an injunction against publishers, distributors and so on, to protect his interests. I cannot precisely anticipate the relief the courts would give, but protection does not run out until the statutory arrangements come into force. Until that time, copyright owners are protected.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) recognises that I have gone to some trouble to try to resolve differences with copyright owners. We do not want litigation to arise from this. We want to move into another era, amicably if possible. I am glad to say that, by and large, that has been achieved. I am grateful to John Mellon of IPC Magazines for his positive approach to the negotiations. We are keen to respond to the issues he raised.
On unnecessarily protracted proceedings, it is true that we decided, on Report, to delete the provision in what was schedule 15 that would have allowed the copyright tribunal to award costs against any publisher who, in exercising his statutory right to publish, fixed the fee at less than a reasonable cost. We thought that a provision to this effect in the Bill was unnecessary, since the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 already contained such a provision. We therefore decided that that in the Bill did not have any practical significance.
My noble Friend the Earl Ferrers made some other remarks about timing, which are reported in theOfficial Report of the other place. Although I believe that the timing is tight, there will be enough time for the necessary negotiating procedures because there will be an incentive for everyone to make the negotiations effective. Although I appreciate that there is two months between the negotiations and their implementation, the only alternative would have been to delay the start of the statutory arrangements until after 1 March. That would not have been justified, having regard to the pressure that has existed for a long time to remedy the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2

RESTRICTIONS ON THE HOLDING OF LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 466, in page 146, line 21, leave out from ("corporate,") to ("and") in line 27 and insert
("shall be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A)")

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 467 to 477 and 483 to 499.

Mr. Maclennan: At an earlier stage my hon. Friends and I sought to reduce the number of local radio stations that a company could own from six to four. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I oppose a system that would allow as many as 20 stations to be owned. It runs a risk of creating something like a game of monopoly, with the companies racing about bidding for the plums. It poses the possibility of large private monopolies being created to the detriment of small local stations and it could make a mockery of the bidding process. Why have the Government agreed to amendment No. 484, to leave out ("six") and insert ("twenty")?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gives me an opportunity to deal with a point that was not always clear from the debates in the other place. Indeed, it was not always clear to me until it was spelt out to me, so I am not assertin great superior insight into the subject.
There is a crucial distinction here. We have changed the rules in a more significant way than just numbers. In the early stages, we were referring to stations. We are now referring to channels. Some independent radio stations in rural areas operate now on up to six channels, because different channels may be required to reach the whole area. A metropolitan example of that is LBC, which has one station with two channels.
We are not talking about 20 stations. At present, there are already over 130 channels in the system, so the limit of 20 gives nobody, on the face of it, more than 15 per cent. It is less than that. But the number of channels is set to expand rapidly, so we shall not be creating a monopoly.
We came up with an ownership system that people thought was crude and not convincing. The Radio Authority came up with another system that we felt needed modification to be acceptable. We suggested, in the spirit of open government which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland would commend, that the AIRC and the Radio Authority, in the light of certain guidance that we sent to them about our response to the Radio Authority's original proposals, should examine our guidance together and come back to us, when we would try to agree to their proposal.
There are undercurrents here. While we do not want monopolies—the Bill is strong on control; it is only in relation to the non-DBS satellites that we have been remotely criticised for not being rigorous—we must remember that we are dealing with small battalions, so there is every advantage in allowing some element of multiple holding. What is left is still small in the context of enterprises outside of television companies. I hope that, in moving from stations to channels, and in due course promulgating—as we shall do by laying an order—the full details of the ownership arrangements, we shall have an arrangement with which the industry feels happy. I want the industry to be confident about the future and believe that it will be much more confident about it if it believes that it has shaped a crucial sector—the ownership requirements.
In further proving that there is life after death in this instance, I gather that I shall have the privilege of dealing with the order when it comes forward. I look forward to then being able to justify what has been done.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister, who made an extremely helpful intervention.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 478, in page 148, line 43, at end insert ("or the Authority")

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 479 to 482, 16, 21, 134, 171, 173, 254 and 256.

Mr. Mellor: Both Houses have made a great effort to try to ensure that a rigorous but fresh climate for religious broadcasting is established under the Bill. I gather that there may be one or two residual problems, so I may intervene later if there are points that I need to pick up.

Mr. Fisher: As the Minister says, many of these matters are technical and, although there are about 700 amendments to come, we are content to accept most of them as technical and will not delay the House. However, I should like the Minister to explain one or two more aspects of this group of amendments, particularly amendment No. 482, which requires the ITC and the Radio Authority to bring into force guidelines.
The Minister will know that hon. Members have received a great deal of correspondence on that matter. The constituency of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) includes Vision Broadcasting and my constituency contains UCB. Both of us have been exercised by the representations of those two organisations on the guidelines, which are currently drawn up by the Radio Authority. The ITC is beginning work on its guidelines.
Both sides of the House are at one in their general aim to prevent American-style, charismatic, evangelistic broadcasting in this country. We do not want the sort of broadcasting where the power of the medium is used to extract a great deal of money with emotional force and all the other sordid elements that have crept in in the United States.
However, many people are, with some justification, concerned that the draft guidelines on which the Radio Authority is working at present may, in one or two particulars, be going too far, especially in relation to restrictions on appeals and donations and exactly what is meant by proselytising. The religious churches that might apply for the licences are perfectly happy to accept the restriction not to appeal on the air for money, but the guidelines on which the Radio Authority is presently working state that no other literature can be produced in support of their activities. That seems to put the churches at a disadvantage in relation to other charitable organisations. It is one thing not to use the power of radio or television to ask for money, but if organisations such as Vision Broadcasting or UCB cannot put out leaflets in support of their activities or ask people to support them in door-to-door campaigns, that seems to be going extremely far, and I am not sure that that is the intention. I should


be grateful if the Minister would give his views on that and some guidance, both to the Radio Authority and the ITC, which are currently drafting their guidelines.
It is difficult to define proselytising—[Interruption.] The Minister has a definition to offer from a sedentary position and I look forward to hearing it later, but hon. Members who do not consider themselves a walking thesaurus would say that it meant to propound and propagate religious beliefs, which is explicitly allowed under this set of guidelines. However, the next sentence in the guidelines says that companies may not use any material
to proselytise or recruit members.
Once again, this is a matter of using written material
which companies may want to circulate to members of the public in support of their claims.
There seems to be some confusion here and it would be helpful if the Minister gave some guidance to the Radio Authority and the ITC to clarify the matter.
We are content with all other aspects of the amendments.

Mr. Michael Alison: I should like to carry forward the expressions of anxiety by the shadow Minister for the Arts about the draft codes of conduct and of programme content that are beginning to appear.
I had occasion to write to my right hon. and learned Friend about this a few days ago, so he is well apprised of the situation. There is no doubt that the new regulatory bodies, the ITC and the Radio Authority, which are the very creatures of this Bill, are arrogating to themselves powers of interpretation and discretion which are all weighted in the direction of restrictions that are the very reverse of the Minister's own liberalising and expansionist philosophy on religious broadcasting. So much is certainly beginning to come through in the draft to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred.
I want to give the Minister the flavour of what I am complaining about. On 18 October last the new draft broadcasting, advertising and sponsorship codes on religious broadcasting were made available for comment. In a letter accompanying the draft codes the controller of advertising at the IBA wrote:
After very careful consideration both the shadow ITC and Radio Authority have concluded that there is not a sufficiently persuasive case to prohibit programme sponsorship by religious organisations".
But my right hon. and learned Friend will recall that as long ago as April he wrote to parliamentary colleagues as follows:
Religious organisations will be allowed to sponsor programmes and to advertise on both TV and radio".
So who is running the country, to ask a rhetorical question? I hope that the Minister will confirm that the controller of advertising at the IBA had no discretion or any option other than to reflect the Minister's decision as conveyed to colleagues in the House on this matter.
This is not a nit-picking point. As my right hon. and learned Friend will know from the letter that I sent him on 24 October and from representations that he has received from other colleagues, the two broadcasting organisations already mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, United Christian Broadcasters—the Stoke-on-Trent radio station—and Vision Broadcasting cable television from Swindon, both approved and authorised to operate by the present Cable Authority,

would be threatened with closure and extinction if the draft programme code circulated by the new Radio Authority were to be implemented, and if it were to be echoed, copied and reflected in the parallel television code, which would affect Vision television.
My right hon. and learned Friend will have noted from the material that I sent him that the UCB station at Stoke-on-Trent falls foul of the new draft code in at least eight identifiable and separate particulars. Yet that very station is warmly commended and authorised by the present Cable Authority. I remind the Minister that, judging from references that he and the Prime Minister have made in correspondence with me and Lord Halsbury, Vision television and UCB are regarded in Downing street and in the Home Office as acceptable and desirable bodies whose future is to be safeguarded and enhanced.
The liberalising regime that my right hon. and learned Friend has sponsored and provided for in the Bill is designed not to mutilate but to multiply groups such as United Christian Broadcasters and Vision Broadcasting. We look to my right hon. and learned Friend for arm assurances that no code will be acceptable to the Government that cannot accommodate and secure the future of UCB and Vision Television.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned the difficulty that we have already encountered in paragraph 7.7 of the draft code——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion and the Lords Amendments to the Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with, thought opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Alison: The draft paragraph is headed "Proselytising" and it seems quite extraordinary that the draft Radio Authority should seek to ban and bar what it calls proselytising, which means exactly the same as evangelism. One has only to read the gospel of St. John the evangelist on television or radio and one is evangelising. However, proselytising, which means making converts to a religion, is apparently to be proscribed. I cannot believe that such nonsensical random drafting by a body that is itself a creature of the Bill can be allowed to continue unchecked. My right hon. and learned Friend must intervene and put a sharper definition, regulation and control on such drafts. Above all, he must provide that bodies such as UCB and Vision will be able to survive, persist, multiply and flourish under the new regime that he has pioneered. We are profoundly grateful to him for the imaginative, outward-looking and constructive way in which he has approached the whole question of religious broadcasting. We look to him to persist with that matter in the oversight that he exercises on the new codes of practice.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I shall start by assuming that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Arts are fully committed to the continuance in operation of the two organisations to which reference has been made in the debate—United Christian Broadcasters, which in Stoke has the advantage of a Dispatch Box speaker, the hon. Member for


Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), on its side, and
Vision Broadcasting in Swindon, for which I should like to speak.
The Minister has made it clear in previous debates and in Committee that he agrees that these bodies are doing a good and useful job and that their future should not be threatened by any legislation, or codes or guidelines drawn up under the legislation. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House that it is too early to assume the worst. I would be happy to feel that I need not assume the worst in these matters. The problem is that, on 1 January, the new ITC and Radio Authority will be in office. They will then have, as it were, the power of life and death over organisations such as those that I have mentioned.
It is important for those of us who wish those organisations to continue to operate after 1 January to be reassured that that will be possible and that nothing will happen to prejudice their chances of survival. The Radio Authority's draft programme code and the shadow ITC's draft code on sponsorship and advertising contain indications that cause considerable concern.
As has been said, in its draft code, the Radio Authority has produced suggestions that would simply close down UCB in Stoke. There can be little doubt about that. Of course there will be consultations about those draft guidelines and objections will be raised. What happens if those objections are overruled and the guidelines are the same on 1 January? We want to know. What happens if the shadow ITC's draft guidelines on sponsorship and advertising are adopted? To be fair, it does say:
The shadow ITC would welcome views on how far the draft rules should apply to advertising on specialised religious channels.
What if, at the end of the consultation exercise, it decides
that those rules should apply? As I understand it, on 1 January, Vision Broadcasting, for example, would be taken out of action. We do not want that to happen. I believe that the Government do not want that to happen, and I have been assured by my right hon. and learned Friend that he does not want it to happen—but the signs are that it could and probably will happen.
In another place, the noble Lord Viscount Buckmaster called me to order and said that he hoped that
the Conservative Member of Parliament for Swindon will pursue vigorously the cause of the broadcasting installation
in his constituency. He also said:
I hope that your Lordships can appreciate the nervousness, especially at Vision Cable, because in recent years the IBA religious broadcasting department has blocked the broadcasting of a number of Christian programmes, as was mentioned on earlier stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House. It blocked them for a number of reasons … Virtually all of those programmes have in the end been broadcast, with some editing or modification … but from 1st January 1991 Vision Cable will be subject to the ITC and the authority of members of the same IBA religious department as originally refused broadcasting permission for those programmes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1990; Vol 522, c. 1221.]
The problem is that those individuals have, for whatever reason, previously demonstrated a dislike of or a hostility towards the sort of programmes being transmitted. We have reason to be concerned about what may happen on 1 January—and on that date it will be too late, unless matters have been clarified and the Government have made it clear to the shadow Radio

Authority and the shadow ITC that they will not tolerate the sort of codes and guidelines that are beginning to appear, and which may multiply and take force on 1 January.
My usual feeling is that codes and guidelines should be kept well away from Government and Parliament. We set up bodies and expect them to act reasonably on our behalf. What happens if one or two bodies act in a way that has an effect diametrically opposite to that which has clearly been stated as desirable by my right hon. and learned Friend and by Parliament? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give us the answer to that. I hope that, before 1 January, he will ensure that any threat to religious broadcasting organisations is well and truly removed for good.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join in this part of the debate with some humility because I wanted, like my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to be a member of the General Synod—but unfortunately, as a Conservative standing in Southwark, I failed to be elected. I regard myself as a member of the Synod, failed.
I stand firmly on the ground advocated by David Sheppard, Bishop of Liverpool. I recommend an article that he wrote in one of today's newspapers, in which he said indirectly that the most important part of religious broadcasting was the broadcasting and not the narrow casting that will come on cable.
Millions of people watch "Highway", "Songs of Praise", and the BBC's "Everyman". Such programmes reach far greater audiences than any of the specific religious Christian broadcasting channels are ever likely to reach. If the promotion of opportunities for radio broadcasting on specific religious channels and cable television lead to the major broadcasters—independent television and the BBC—dropping their God slots and goodness corners, the loss to the people will be great.
We may not be faced with that choice—I do not have sufficient knowledge of the matter—but I do know that the fight for Radio 3 and the broadcasting elements for Christian and other great faiths has meant that people do not watch or listen only to the listings of their choice, but can come across elements of broadcasting almost as a surprise—and faith may do the same, not as the result of evangelism, but as a part of our national life.
Large-scale national religious broadcasting is vital. I cannot speak for the organisations in Stoke or Swindon. I have not listened to their output and I am not sure that I have read what they have sent to me—if, indeed, they have sent me anything. I respect my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) because they know what they are talking about in speaking up for the modification of the draft code, but I do not want the code to be modified so that, although we may gain a spread of local religious channels and stations, the national radio and television broadcasters will drop what is important to those of us who have or seek faith and who want religion to be reflected in national broadcasting.
Let us look at the United States and its three major national networks. There is an absence of what we in this country take for granted.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Why does my hon. Friend think that it is an either/or situation; we can have both.

Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure that my hon. Friend can have been listening to me. I did not say that it would necessarily be an either/or situation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not.

Mr. Bottomley: In all humility, I should like to develop my own speech. I may be wrong, and my hon. Friend may be right. I merely want to ensure that we do not debate the matter without recognising the major influence of the hours of broadcasts that are valuable to all of us. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) would agree with that. I doubt whether Twyford high school would have been converted to a Church of England school without the background influence of national broadcasting, even though the majority of children at that school are not necessarily of a Christian denomination.
That important element, and the work that the Bishop of Liverpool does with the Central Religious Advisory Committee, should get more attention. I hope that, as the months go by, people will listen to the chairman and members of that committee, who do have a broad knowledge of what is going on. They may be able to prevent us from falling into the idea that religion is a minority interest rather than a most important part of our national life and our national broadcasting network.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their commitment to making progress with the Bill, and for their co-operation in achieving that aim. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I moved future amendments formally—not to avoid debate, but to avoid unnecessary debates. If there are then points on which I can assist the House, as I am sure there will he, I can respond to them. That may be preferable to my introducing at any length questions on which, given the consideration the Bill has already received, hon. Members may be perfectly content.

Hon. Members: indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): From all the heads that are being vigorously nodded, I get the impression that that is a most welcome suggestion.

Mr. Mellor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a good start.
The constituents of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) get a bit of balance in their lives, being represented by him in Parliament and having religious broadcasters in their midst as some compensation. When we set our hand to an expansion of responsible religious broadcasting, we did so advisedly, believing that some broadcasters would view responsibly the expansion that had been made possible, but knowing that there are some other groups—cults and American-style broadcasters, for example—that we would not want broadcasting here and for which the Bill provides no mandate. That is why the Bill is carefully drawn to permit the expansion of responsible Christian broadcasting while at the same time preventing irresponsible or exploitative broadcasting.
Unfortunately, these are not self-defining passages. They require sensitive work on the part of the regulatory bodies—in this case the ITC and the Radio Authority. Frankly, I do not envy either of those bodies their task, but I believe that they are doing the best that they can to

consult widely on their guidelines. I imagine that the reason why the Radio Authority has produced guidelines—guidelines that neither I nor the Government have seen, but upon which comments have been made—is to ensure that, if they are unreasonable, they can be corrected before they are promulgated formally. If it is thought that the authority is being unreasonable even when the guidelines are promulgated, much as I am reluctant to call upon the assistance of my learned friends in these matters because I do not want to add to their work with this Bill, it would be a fitting matter for judicial review.
If it is any help, we obviously considered these matters. It is not our job to be a regulator—I say that on constitutional grounds—but obviously, if something seems manifestly unfair, I dare say that comments to that effect would not be improper, if they were privately expressed.
10.15 pm
On the whole, we should have some sympathy with the regulators in their task. After all that we have been through, I do not believe that either UCB or Vision Broadcasting will find things very difficult. I am anxious that they should not—to use the old boxing parlance—squeal before they are hurt. We have to bear in mind the fact that the ITC has not yet even published its draft guidelines. Frankly, I cannot be expected to give reassurances about a problem that has not even arisen.
As I have already said, while I cannot anticipate the ITC's individual licensing decisions, I am quite sure that Vision Broadcasting will have nothing to fear under the new regime on programming grounds if its religious broadcasting is responsible and not exploitative. So far, I have no reason to believe that its output has been anything other than responsible, and it has not been exploitative.
Some of my hon. Friends are very keen, either because organisations are located in their constituencies or because they are involved with new and exciting opportunities, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). We must also bear in mind the cautious words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and of the Bishop of Liverpool, with whom I have discussed this topic. There is another view, which is that there are real dangers in allowing expoitative religious groups in by the back door. We have to accept that there is a role for the regulators in distinguishing one from the other.
I am keen to be absolutely sure that the regulations work properly. I am satisfied in my own mind but, by setting about the process of consultation with such care, in the end it will be possible for sensible people to come to terms on the matter.

Mr. Fisher: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed that we do not want the high-pressure charismatic broadcasting that disfigures the American scene; we are at one with the Minister on that.
The Minister must accept that his Bill places a responsibility on the Radio Authority and the commission to introduce guidelines. By taking the arm's-length view of the guidelines—that he has admitted to in his replies--he is distancing himself far too much from the creature and from the responsibilities that he has set up.
I am sure that the Minister has listened carefully to the debate. The speech by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), speaking as a Church Commissioner, and


those of other hon. Members should give him some cause for concern. Many of the guidelines that the Radio Authority and, probably, the ITC are working on are quite correct—for example, those on appeals for money on the air, on not denigrating other religions, and on limiting programmes about phenomena. It is not that all the guidelines are wrong. But I should have thought that the Minister would have heard enough in this short debate to realise that there is genuine concern about appeals, donations and the problem area of proselytising.
The House would be reassured if the Minister gave an undertaking to get in contact with the Radio Authority and the ITC. He has required them to set up guidelines. If he entered into a dialogue at this stage, we could get things right before 1 January. That is not asking a great deal of the Minister. He has brought the guidelines and responsibilities into force, so he owes it to the House to take a little more interest in them, and to ensure that they are the sort of guidelines that all hon. Members want.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but may I say to him in all kindness—and I mean that—that he must not allow the fact that one of these organisations is located in his constituency to blur his wider judgment. If I started to meddle with the regulatory bodies on other issues, he would be the first to leap up and say that that was constitutionally improper. As it happens, I believe that this is a perfectly proper matter on which I dare say we shall have discussions, but we must not be thought to be trying to lean on the regulatory bodies to prevent them from dealing sensitively with a difficult matter. I do not want worthwhile broadcasters to be trampled on. That will not, I believe, be the consequence. With great respect, however, to all concerned, since the Independent Television Commission has not yet published its draft——

Mr. Fisher: There is also the Radio Authority.

Mr. Mellor: That is a separate body.
I return to the point that we have set our hand to expanding religious broadcasting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was kind enough to say that I have done it, but in five or 10 years' time, I do not want bitterly to regret having done it because we had levered the regulatory bodies into a position in which they were afraid to stand up against exploitative religious broadcasting.
I do not suggest that either of the organisations is exploitative; I am perfectly satisfied that they are not. Anyone standing in my position, however, would be well advised not to say too much to the regulatory bodies that will be doing their best to deal with the problems they encounter. Nevertheless, in so far as there are words that with advantage might be changed to softer or better words, in accordance with the principles that we have followed throughout our consideration of the Bill, the officials will want to have discussions about them. I do not wish to appear to be condemning prematurely regulatory bodies that will be doing their best, but I shall convey with pleasure both to the ITC and to the Radio Authority the points that have been made in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Mr. Mellor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that we missed Lords amendment No. 110 to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) wished to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I had put the Question on that amendment but, in view of the speed at which I was moving, I shall gladly reverse engines and allow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) to speak.

New clause

PROMOTION OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN RELATION TO EMPLOYMENT BY LICENCE HOLDER

Lords amendment: No. 110, after clause 34, insert the following new clause—

(".—(1) Any Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel 4 or Channel 5 shall include conditions requiring the licence holder—
(a) to make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment by him, equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups; and
(b) to review those arrangements from time to time.

(2) In subsection (1) "racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.")

Mr. Fisher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. I understand that with this we are discussing Lords amendments Nos. 124 and 310.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for your courtesy. The amendments were moving like a blur before my ears. I do not want to detain the House for long, but it is important to record the thanks of a great many people for the Minister's commitment on Report to deal with equal opportunities. In view of his doubts about that in Committee, it reflected well on the way in which he listened to the debate and considered it. Many people were extremely grateful to him.
The Minister received a delegation from myself and others including Cherry Ehrlich, the BBC's equal opportunities officer, Christina Driver, the industrial officer of the Broadcasting and Entertainment Trades Alliance and Sophie Balhatchet of the Independent Programme Producers Association. He listened, as is his wont, very attentively. We put it to him that a generalised commitment to equal opportunities would not achieve what he had sought to give as a commitment on Report. We told him that we were seeking a definite statement that Channel 3 companies should have a policy on equal opportunities and that it should cover employment, promotion and other training issues. We said that in order to ensure that the policy was effective, we would at least need to monitor the progress of each company and for it to publish its progress in its annual report. The Bill requires the companies elsewhere to produce annual reports. That would not be an onerous responsibility and would ensure that there was some accountability to the public and the work force that progress was being made.
The Minister heard our submission with great attentiveness and we went away believing that he was sympathetic to it. Therefore, it was disappointing to receive a letter from the Minister three or four weeks later saying that after further consideration and discussion with the shadow ITC he felt that this could best be achieved by a generalised statement in the Bill and guidelines from the


ITC that would have non-statutory force. The shape of that argument is ironic when it is the reverse of the argument on impartiality that we had earlier in the evening. Perhaps such inconsistencies are a feature of these debates.
I should be grateful if the Minister could put on the record why he feels that the very loose and generalised statement presented in Lords amendment No. 110 is satisfactory, and how the guidelines will achieve what I took to be his intention that each company should have an equal opportunities policy, monitor the progress of that policy and publish the results annually. That does not strike me as an expensive or arduous commitment; it would also promote the skills of women, members of the ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. That last group seems to have disappeared from the clause, although the original intention was to include them. All three groups, however, have many skills to offer independent broadcasting-—skills that are not being fully represented now.
10.30 pm
The Minister knows the statistics; they do not need to be laboured. Let me point out, however, that this is not simply an argument for equity and justice: if the skills that those groups have to offer are muted or unrealised, not only will the people concerned be disadvantaged or prejudiced against, but the rest of us will suffer too. We shall be the losers, because broadcasting will be less strong, skilful and various than it would otherwise be.
I suspect that the Minister has considerable sympathy with the case that I am making. My point is that the Bill and the guidelines are unlikely, in their present form, to have the impact that we understood him to intend following the meeting in his office.

Mr. Mellor: I think that the key remark made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) came at the beginning of his speech: having been rather dubious about it, we have put a clause clearly on the face of the Bill. There is, of course, always the danger of being outbid—we cannot do everything that people want—but, having read the clause again while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I feel that it represents a very real commitment. I am sorry if it did not emerge plainly enough at the meeting that what I envisaged would be couched in general terms, but I feel in any event that the best must not be the enemy of the good. This is, I think, a significant step forward.
Licence holders—that is, holders of licences for Channels 3, 4 and 5, domestic satellite services and national radio services—will be required to make arrangements to promote equal opportunities for men and women and for people of different racial groups, and to review those arrangements from time to time. The ITC and the Radio Authority will enforce the provisions through the licence conditions that they impose under the new clauses. They may require the applicants to set out their

equal opportunities policies, and successful applicants would then be subject to an equal opportunities condition in their licences. That condition would take account of any undertaking that the applicant had made, and—this is relevant to one of the hon. Gentleman's points—the IBA has undertaken that the licence conditions should include a requirement for the holder to review progress on equal opportunities in the company's annual report.
I recognise the strength of the case for the involvement of disabled people. I discussed the matter with the Department of Employment. The Department's view was that—as it is reviewing discrimination against disabled people, and has recently issued a consultation document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", and as that consultation period does not expire until the end of the year—it would not be right to pre-empt the outcome of the review by carrying out a specific review relating to broadcasting. We have no sinister motive for not including such a provision; we simply wanted to have regard to the fact that consultation is in progress.
I hope that what I have said about the way in which the regulatory bodies propose to deal with the matter strengthens the case for the clause, and convinces the hon. Gentleman that we are making a genuine effort. Even if it falls short of the ideal, it is still not bad.

Mr. Fisher: I accept that there are encouraging elements in what the Minister said, although he will understand that, when it is a question of the difference between "may" and "should", there is the possibility of misinterpretation. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do all that he can to encourage the ITC to fulfil those aspirations and to introduce an appropriate requirement as part of the licence application.
People with disabilities will genuinely be disappointed with the Minister's remarks. They have few opportunities and are permanently discriminated against not just by the Government but in all walks of life, yet the Bills equal opportunities clause excludes them. It is not good enough for the Minister to argue that because the Department of Employment has initiated a consultation exercise and produced a document—although it is not a bad document—there is no need to make provision in the Bill for people with disabilities.
Even if the Minister has not gone as far as we want, he has taken an important step forward by putting equal opportunities on the face of the Bill, and by placing a duty, albeit couched in gentle terms, on a particular group of employers. Still, to have missed the opportunity to represent the interests of people with disabilities will be gravely misinterpreted by them. I urge the Minister to think again, even at this late stage. That apart, I welcome the encouraging signs that he has given, and hope that he will pursue the point more fully.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 79

REGULATION BY AUTHORITY OF INDEPENDENT RADIO SERVICES.

Lords amendment: No. 228, in page 66, line 39, leave out
("within a particular institution, or at")
and insert
("for a particular establishment or other defined location, or").

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 229 to 235, 239, 240, 250, 251, 277, 300 to 309, 311 to 314, 333, 334 and 338.

Mr. Corbett: I shall not detain the House, but I wish to make a small point on amendment No. 313. We could spend many hours on the difference between "shall" and "may", but we will not do so.
The amendment applies to when an announcement must be made about the results of a finding. The Minister accepted in Committee that a radio station should explain why an announcement was being made. I am interested, if he is able to help me, to know why their Lordships felt that they had to change "shall" back to "may". If he can assure me that the effect is the same, we can move on.
In Committee, the Minister was kind enough to be persuaded that we should make this mandatory and that we should use "shall" in that context. I wonder what has persuaded him to change his mind since Committee.

Mr. Maclennan: I have another point to make, although I should like to return to amendment No. 313.
Amendment No. 306, if I read it right, would permit companies that did not want to or were unable to live up to their service responsibilities to abandon them. The use of the word "substantially" is much too strong; it allows considerable watering down of the schedules. Some explanation of that is called for, even at this hour.
I noticed the change, to which the hon. Member Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred, from "shall" to "may" in amendment No. 313. I am seeking to protect listeners' rights. If an announcement is made, listeners are entitled to know whether the Radio Authority has found a station to be in error, to have done something that is unacceptable and, indeed, whether it is censoring the station. The listener can then make up his mind whether that is an effective remedy for a transgression.
I think that by this time there is a fair chance that the Minister will have a view about that.

Mr. Mellor: Yes, I have managed to acquire a view, and I am only too happy to give it to the House.
I begin with what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said about amendment No. 306, which allows the Radio Authority mare flexibility to let stations drop unpopular programmes or strands of programmes that have gone out of fashion. It makes it clear that the fundamental character of the station may not change, and I attach importance to that. I said in a public speech not long ago that it is very important that stations that have been given a licence on one basis should not be allowed to slither rapidly towards the middle of the pop market and stay there so that every time a listener flicks across the airwaves he finds the same old stuff.

Mr. Corbett: What is pop?

Mr. Mellor: I am reliably assured by my noble Friend Lord Ferrers that pop is something that goes thump, thump, thump. That was said not to be sophisticated enough for drafting, but for my purposes it seems absolutely right. In my long reign as Minister for the Arts, I intend to use that definition with monotonous regularity.
Amendment No. 314 gives the authority the ability to impose a fine on licensees who fail to observe their promise of performance. That shows that no leniency is intended, but sometimes there will be a good reason why one set of undertakings is not appropriate. However, no one will be allowed gratuitously off the hook and, like the hon. Member for Erdington, I attach much importance to that fact.
I am afraid that there is a problem with amendment No. 313. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) did rather well in Committee on 27 February. Nothing in his ensuing career has been anything like as glorious as that afternoon. The hon. Gentleman may recall that he was on something of a winning streak when, in one of our briefer exchanges, he proposed that "may" should be amended to "shall" and I said, "Why not?" I am afraid that when the matter got to the other place and the inconsistency between the television and radio provisions was tackled, the latter, rather than the former, was changed. I am sorry about that. Perhaps good comes out of bad, in the sense that we could have ended up with the right policy by going consistently the other way.
10.45 pm
On 27 February, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said:
If a licence holder says that he has apologised because he must do so, that is a less powerful apology than one that simply states, 'I am apologising.'"—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 27 February 1990; c. 1072.]
There is something in that point. There is also the more general point that, under the Bill, the licensee is responsible for his programming output, as the ITC and Radio Authority are not broadcasting bodies. It is arguably more consistent on this principle for the licensee to be able to decide whether he should say that an apology or correction is being broadcast as a result of a regulatory direction.
I am sorry. By and large, this is the only occasion when something has gone wrong with an undertaking. We have honoured dozens of undertakings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to slither off this hook.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lord amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 122

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO IBA's BROADCASTING SERVICES AND TO EXISTING CABLE SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 344, in page 98, line 13, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(aa)) for the purpose of the regulation by the Commission after the end of that period of services provided in succession to the DBS services provided by them during that period; and")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 345, 346 and amendment (a) thereto, 347 to 359, 512 to 515, 521 to 542, 543 and amendment (a) thereto, 544 to 554, 555 and amendment (a) thereto, and 556 to 574.

Mr. Maclennan: I should like to speak to Lords amendment No. 347. We strongly welcome the Government's decision to allow for a continued pooling of transmission expenses. However, once again, the Bill provides only for an interim period. Despite the Minister's reassurances, there is no protection in the Bill for the sparsely populated areas and areas of difficult terrain on a continuing basis. This gives rise to concern in companies such as Grampian Television that they may be forced out of business and be taken over by geographically more fortunate franchise holders.
I had understood that the Minister's commitment was to provide for a system that would not be brought to a conclusion at the end of the interim period. I am therefore surprised to see the provision in this form. I know that the Minister will be prepared at least to repeat his earlier assurances.

Mr. Mellor: I repeat those assurances. This is not an easy issue. The previous Home Secretary announced in July last year that there would be a uniform tariff for Channel 3 companies. The announcement also made it clear that those cross-subsidy arrangements would be reviewed. Of course, one stands by that.
As for radio, there is a transitional period. Because of the nature of the radio system, it was decided that the kind of elaborate arrangements that might have been appropriate for television were not appropriate for perpetuation in the radio system. Some radio companies are dismayed about that and a long and honourable battle has been waged by Mr. Prag of the Moray Firth radio station. I made it clear to him throughout that I did not think that I could improve on the position that I had inherited and that I was under great pressure from the Association of Independent Radio Contractors not to do so.
We have not moved any goalposts in the amendments, but I understand that we have not gone as far as some other interests would have wished us to do. I can only regret that, but say that I have done so on the best advice from others within the industry.

Mr. Maclennan: I cannot say that I am surprised by the Minister's remarks about radio because they conform to what he has said throughout. I may have misread Lords amendment No. 347, but I thought that it referred to television and I wanted to draw attention to it for that reason. I have been advised that some of the companies are concerned about the provisions. It is, of course, for the smaller companies, such as Grampian Television, which serve areas of sparse population, that the arrangements are to be made only for an interim period. There will not be a continuing guarantee of cross-subsidisation.

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. At the end of a long evening, I see the point. The break in the mid-1990s was raised on Report. It is necessary to review these matters from time to time, but I cannot conceive that anything is likely to change as the case for these measures will be as compelling then as it is now. It is simply that, following consultations with other Departments, it has not

been open to us to put in place a perpetuity arrangement. We are concerned about transmission systems being far more complex in some areas than in others.
On Report, there was petitioning from the west country. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said that there were 30-odd booster stations in his constituency alone. The best that I could do then—it was quite considerable—was to say that, while there has to be a review period, I personally doubted whether the basis of the argument would have changed materially to allow any different result from that which we already considered to be conceivable.

Mr. Alistair Darling: rose——

Mr. Mellor: I believe that I am technically intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, so I had better sit down and allow him to finish so that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) can say his piece.

Mr. Maclennan: I am only too happy to rise to my feet again to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

Mr. Darling: I wanted an undertaking from the Minister rather than an undertaking from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who, I suspect, is not in a position now—nor, with due respect, is likely to be—to give me such an undertaking.
I understand what the Minister is saying. However, it might be helpful—and would be appreciated by those who live in areas that are served by many transmitters—to obtain an undertaking from the Government to keep the situation under review. There may be an opportunity to look at the position again in the mid-1990s, but the worry is that something might happen fairly quickly in the interim which meant that Parliament was unable to respond to developments. If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland could continue his speech to allow the Minister to intervene to give that undertaking, I should be happy.

Sir Giles Shaw: I rise in support of the points made by the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). Of all the complexities that are described in the Bill, that of the transmission system—its maintenance, its ownership and its effectiveness—is the area of greatest weakness, in my humble estimation. It is at its greatest weakness in the provisions for outlying areas that require many subsidiary transmitters, which add substantially to capital and to operating costs.
My right hon. and learned Friend would be unwise to assume that it was purely a matter of rural areas. It is at its most obvious in rural areas and in the Celtic fringes. However, even in some more populated parts, there is considerable difficulty in obtaining adequate transmitters to fit the existing regional contractors' marketing purposes. My right hon. and learned Friend knows perfectly well that large portions of Yorkshire, for example, are omitted from receiving signals from Yorkshire Television and are included in the north-eastern regional station. Those are obvious quirks of geography.
The review of the transmission system under the new regime will require even greater resources than do the reviews under the current system. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to agree that there will be frequent reviews of the transmission system in the early stages of the ITC


Channel 3 operation with a view not only to dealing with the problems raised by those in Scotland and in Wales, but to reviewing the system in the rest of the country.

Mr. Mellor: I appreciate the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). The present cross-subsidy arrangements subsist until 1992 and the new cross-subsidy arrangements will operate from 1993 to 1996.
My hon. Friend asked about the technical capabilities of the system. We discussed that exhaustively in Committee when I was happy to state that we were committed not only to maintaining the existing system, but to improving it for the benefit of those in the so-called black holes of the transmission system. At present, 99·4 per cent. of the population is covered by the system, but we aim to improve on that. In the course of a privatisation there would be no question about that. Obligations would be set to ensure that there was no deviation from the perpetuation of an efficient and effective system covering existing transmission areas. We hope that that would be accompanied not only by further improvements in transmission to areas already covered by the system, but by an extension of the system into some of those black holes. Such improvements are firmly in our sights.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Mellor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unless I am misinformed, I understand that no other hon. Member has given notice of wanting to intervene on any of the subsequent amendments.

Mr. Fisher: I intended to speak to Lords amendment No. 432.

Mr. Mellor: That is not on my note. I had hoped to be able to suggest that we might be able to put all the other amendments to the House en bloc.

Mr. Fisher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On amendment No. 432, could the Minister say something about the sort of sum——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot do that. First, we should deal with the proposition that we should take the rest of the amendments en bloc. Is there any hon. Member who disagrees with that proposition?

Mr. Cryer: Yes. Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure what en bloc means. Does the Minister mean a select group of amendments or all the amendments? Even though we appear to rush through amendments, our practice gives hon. Members an opportunity to intervene when they so wish. I am opposed to dealing with the subsequent amendments en bloc.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome maximum speed in our deliberations where possible, but there are two groups of amendments on which I should like to intervene briefly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept, of course, the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). We shall proceed as we have hitherto.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 163

USE AS RIGHT OF SOUND RECORDINGS IN BROADCAST AND CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 387, in page 124, line 18, leave out from ("licence") to ("terms") in line 19 and insert—("(a) whose").

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]

11 pm

Mr. Simon Coombs: This amendment deals with the delicate balance that has always been struck and maintained between the interests of the music recording industry and of broadcasters, particularly in radio. I urge caution on the Government before they do anything to change that delicate balance.
I am pleased to note that the issue was thoroughly aired in the other place and that assurances were given. I need not detain the House at this stage, apart from urging my right hon. and learned Friend to be keenly aware of the concern in the music recording industry about the fact that a small change in legislation could have a big effect on a major British industry that has always been a successful contributor to the British balance of payments. In that light, I hope that he will recognise the need for caution and will do nothing to upset that delicate balance.

Mr. Mellor: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is a responsibility, I am almost happy to say, of the Department of Trade and Industry, and I shall make sure that that Department is made aware of my hon. Friend's view, of which I am well aware from representations made to me.

Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also convey to the Department of Trade and Industry the fact that as there is now no format protection in the Bill, any format programme from television can be pirated and run on radio without any payment whatever?

Mr. Mellor: That is the Hughie Green case that we discussed at length. It all turns on whether it is an idea or whether it constitutes a fully worked through, written document of a kind that can attract copyright protection. I regret that there remains dissatisfaction on that issue. I shall convey that dissatisfaction to my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, all of whom are prudently absent from the House at this hour.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause

UNAUTHORISED DECODERS FOR ENCRYPTED SERVICES ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 407, after clause 166, to insert the following new clause—

(".—(1) In the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the following section shall be inserted after section 297—

Unauthorised decoders.

297A.—(1) A person who makes, imports, sells or lets for hire any unauthorised decoder shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(2) It is a defence to any prosecution for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he did not know, and had no reasonable ground for knowing, that the decoder was an unauthorised decoder.

(3) In this section—
"apparatus" includes any device, component or electronic data;
"decoder" means any apparatus which is designed or adapted to enable (whether on its own or with any other apparatus) an encrypted transmission to be decoded;
"transmission" means any programme included in a broadcasting or cable programme service which is provided from a place in the United Kingdom; and
"unauthorised", in relation to a decoder, means a decoder which will enable encrypted transmissions to be viewed in decoded form without payment of the fee (however imposed) which the person making the transmission, or on whose behalf it is made, charges for viewing those transmissions, or viewing any service of which they form part."

(2) In section 299 of the Act of 1988 (fraudulent reception of programmes broadcast from countries or territories outside the United Kingdom)—
(a) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect; and
(b) in subsection (5), after "297" there shall be inserted "297A".")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Simon Coombs: The House will be aware that I took considerable interest in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That measure, among many other things, prohibits satellite signal theft and gives satellite service providers certain remedies against the manufacture, importation and sale of unauthorised decoding equipment. But the provisions apply only to signals uplinked from the United Kingdom. Signals uplinked from abroad enjoy no legal protection. That means that there is no legal remedy against the growing proliferation of pirate decoders. About 30 per cent. of United Kingdom homes with authorised decoding equipment are now estimated to have unauthorised decoders provided by Filmnet. That has caused, and will increasingly cause in the future, serious economic loss to United Kingdom satellite services and their programme suppliers. Therefore, we need an amendment to the 1988 Act to enable the Government to extend legal protection to all signals originating from abroad, not just—as the present law provides—signals from countries that already have laws against satellite signal theft.
The recent case of BBC Enterprisesv. Hi-Tech Xtravision suggests that it is not dishonest within the meaning of the 1988 Act, and therefore not illegal, to buy unauthorised decoding equipment that is available more cheaply from someone other than the broadcaster and to use it to receive encoded satellite signals. That interpretation, if followed by other courts, would render the satellite signal theft provisions of the current statute almost unenforceable. Therefore, an amendment is needed to the 1988 Act to make it clear that an offence is committed whenever a relevant transmission is received with intent to avoid payment, without requiring a further showing of dishonesty.
Although the Court of Appeal in the BBC case that I mentioned found that the 1988 Act establishes both a primary right and a corresponding remedy in respect of the manufacture, importation and sale of unauthorized

decoding equipment, there was almost unanimous agreement among the judges who considered the case that the current statute is not nearly as clear as previous law in establishing the primary right. Therefore, the 1988 Act should also be amended to clarify that point.
The Broadcasting Bill could be an appropriate vehicle for those amendments to the copyright law. In July, in the other place, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead introduced amendments that would have achieved the desired effect. The Government, in the person of Lord Saunderson of Bowden, said that they were considering the matter and would introduce amendments on Report. But the amendments before us have not met the requirements, as I said. The new clause does not provide the protection asked for.
Among the companies that fear that, in all probability, they will lose heavily financially are the BBC, British Satellite Broadcasting, Sky Television, the Federation against Copyright Theft, the British Video Association, the British Screen Advisory Council and the Motion Picture Export Association of America. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the House will recognise the seriousness of the matter, which is why I have sought to detain the House at this late hour.
I appreciate that at this late stage of the Bill's passage it is too late to amend the legislation to deal with those problems. But I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the matter and, if necessary, be prepared to return to the issue before this burgeoning and important industry in the United Kingdom is severely, and perhaps irreparably, damaged.

Mr. Mellor: These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to whom I shall certainly convey the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). I appreciate that there is a problem in relation to Filmnet. The suggestion that emerged from the debate in the House of Lords was that those who sell film rights should, in all conscience, ensure that they sell them only to people who have some interest in ensuring that they cannot be readily pirated. The fault lies not with the Government, but with Filmnet for using relatively crude technology that can be so easily broken into.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be only too happy to become further engrossed in those matters in due course. I, as Minister for the Arts, will not have a continuing role in all this.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 408, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

New Clause

CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS MAINTENANCE OF NATIONAL TELEVISION ARCHIVE.

Lords amendment: No. 432, after clause 170, insert the following new clause—

(".—(I) The Commission shall, for the financial year which includes the commencement of this section and each subsequent financial year, determine an aggregate amount which they consider it would be appropriate for the holders of Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences to contribute, in accordance


with this section, towards the expenses incurred by the nominated body in connection with the maintenance by it of a national television archive.

(2) In this section "the nominated body" means such body as may for the time being be nominated by the Commission for the purposes of this section, being a body which—
(a) is for the time being a designated body for the purposes of section 75 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (recordings for archival purposes), and
(b) appears to the Commission to be in a position to maintain a national television archive.

(3) A Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to pay to the Commission, in respect of each of the financial years mentioned in subsection (1), such amount as they may notify to him for the purposes of this section, being such proportion of the aggregate amount determined for that year under that subsection as they consider appropriate (and different proportions may be determined in relation to different persons).

(4) Any amount received by the Commission by virtue of subsection (3) shall be transmitted by them to the nominated body.

(5) In this section—
"the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission; and
"Channel 3 licence" and "Channel 5 licence" have the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Fisher: I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about this because he will agree that it is an extremely significant development. We have a large but by no means complete television archive, which represents an important cultural collection, and it would be helpful if the Minister told us about the size of what is called the "aggregate amount" and about the cost to franchise applicants. He should also express his encouragement for the enterprise.
Will the Minister also say a little about the nominated body? In subsection (2) of the Lords amendment, that body is mentioned but not specified. There are a large number of different archives in existence, and there are problems to do with compatibility, format and handling. Who will compose the nominated body? How will the commission come to that decision? How will it reconcile the different archives? What sums of money will be involved?
This is an important provision; we trust that it will coherently lay down the sort of archive that the industry needs for the future.

Mr. Cryer: I also welcome the Lords amendment. It represents one of the many commitments made by the Minister in Committee to some sort of national archeive. Film going back to before the turn of the century in the Weintraub archive at the Associated British Picture Corporation as was, now Goldcrest at Elstree, has been sold to the United States, so valuable historic documentation of how people then lived, in animated picture form, is no longer in United Kingdom ownership.
The Government might say that as long as the film can be seen, it does not really matter who owns it, but there is obviously a greater interest in this country in preserving that sort of footage than there is in the United States, where an owner might see some commercial advantage in disposing of it to yet another owner. I recall that, of the silent British feature films made at the studios of Cecil Hepworth in the 1920s, all bar one—"Coming through the

Rye"—were sold to be dissolved to make dope for covering the canvas aircraft fuselages of the time. So we lost a valuable historic collection for relatively small commercial considerations.
I echo the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). How much money is envisaged? What sort of costs are likely to be involved? I welcome the fact that the archive, under public ownership and control, cannot be sold off at the whim of some takeover merchant, as happened when the Associated British Picture Corporation studios and film vaults were sold to Cannon—and in turn sold off by Cannon.
Elstree Studios could survive on the income derived from lending films from the archives without making any pictures in the studios. It did that as well, thus adding cream to the cake, but that was stopped, not by any decision by film makers in the United Kingdom but by a decision by Cannon, as it then was, simply to maximise the real estate value of Elstree Studios to offset the financial difficulties in which Cannon found itself in the United States.
11.15 pm
I welcome the clause. It would be interesting to know what the Minister had in mind during any discussions. It is not the Minister's decision, but at least he must have had some discussions about the sums involved, how long it will take the nominated body to set up the archive and what sort of material is currently available. I suspect that the cost of storing video material is lower than the cost of storing film. However, some records must be on film, which must be stored in carefully controlled conditions.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad that our decision to put these matters on a statutory basis has met with the approval of the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that it is a shame when irreplaceable art heritage items are wilfully destroyed. I am glad that he mentioned the institute at Bradford, which is part of the Arts Council's drive for more inner-city arts activities. It is proud of the museum in Bradford, which I gather is important not only for what it achieves but as a centre for visitors who come a long way to see it. That rather proves the advantages of the arts in inner cities because it makes those areas places to which people will go. I found that the other day when I visited the Tate gallery in Liverpool.
I was asked about who would keep the archive. The body has yet to be nominated, but I do not think that it is any secret that I think that it will be the British Film Institute, which is obviously well qualified to do that and is already doing it. We wish to keep up the level of payments in real terms, which will be about £200,000 per annum at current prices from the ITV companies. I am glad to say that, although we have not placed a statutory requirement on Channel 4, it has confirmed its willingness to continue to contribute to the archive and will contribute a further £100,000.
As is always the case, such organisations would like a bit more, but I think that everyone understands that £300,000 is enough to maintain an archive that is properly representative of British television for the years in question. Although the change is not earth shattering, it is one of the useful changes made during the progress of the Bill.

Mr. Fisher: How will the provision operate retrospectively? As I understand it, the provision refers only to the new franchise holders, and the important existing archive of current ITV companies will not be covered. The British Film Institute keeps some but by no means all of the archives. Perhaps if I talk for long enough, the Minister will get some sort of steer on the matter. He appears to be none the wiser and is obviously superbly well informed already. What is the scope of the British Film Institute's present activities and how will those activities link with future commitments?

Mr. Mellor: My advisers told me the bit that I already knew. They do not know the bit that I should like to know. They have confirmed that what I know is right. It was once said of Ronald Reagan, "It ain't what he knows that bothers me, but what he says he knows that ain't so." At least what I know seems to be right, which is that the ITV companies already contribute voluntarily to the BFI. The hon. Gentleman asked about their existing archives and whether there are any plans to pool them in a central point. I do not know the answer to that, but I shall try to find out and inform the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 173

POWER TO GIVE BROADCASTING BODIES ETC. DIRECTIONS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Lords amendment:No. 434, in page 136, line 39, after ("may") insert ("by order")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 435.

Mr. Cryer: I welcome the amendments because they fulfil another commitment made in Committee. They translate a direction by a Minister into a statutory instrument subject to annulment by either or both Houses of Parliament. That is a slight improvement in the accountability of Ministers because they have to present a statutory instrument that is subject to perusal by the House.
In case we are carried away by the work done by the people down the Corridor, I should point out that many of these proposals were made in Committee and the Minister found it convenient to introduce them in another place. It shows that there is nothing that a revising committee could not do if, on some happy future date, the House of Lords happened to be replaced.

Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome the amendments. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could refresh failing memories on the implications of clause 173, if amended. For those hon. Members who are not closely following the Bill, the clause, as amended, would state that the Secretary of State may by order direct certain bodies to carry out functions
for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to give effect to any international obligations of the United Kingdom.

The clause does not specify broadcasting obligations. It lists all the broadcasting authorities—the BBC, the ITC, the Welsh Authority, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Council. I assume that
any international obligations of the United Kingdom".
means, for example, that if we have international obligations under the resolution of the Security Council with regard to the presence in the Gulf, the Secretary of State might seek, by order approved in the House, to direct the broadcasting authorities to carry certain messages, or whatever he may determine.
I want the Minister to confirm whether that applies purely to broadcasting obligations under international agreements——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is a blank cheque.

Mr. Banks: As my hon. Friend suggests, is it a blank cheque for the broadcasting authorities, by order, to carry out any obligations—military or whatever—that the Secretary of State of the day may determine? Will the Minister refresh our memories?

Mr. Mellor: I am happy to confirm that it means only obligations relevant to the broadcasting authorities in question. We are not fundamentally changing their nature to get them to do other things. It is a tempting thought, but one that must be resisted.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Alistair Darling, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. David Mellor.

To withdraw immediately.

Mr. Mellor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before withdrawing immediately, I should like to express my appreciation to the whole House for the businesslike way in which we have been able to discuss the amendments tonight. I am most grateful to all concerned.

Mr. Corbett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had it been possible for the House to leave alone those who have lived with the Bill for nigh on a year, we should probably have made even better progress, and we should not, perhaps, have experienced some of the hiccups that I am told occurred last week. Happily, I was not concerned with those, because at the time I was standing on my head in Australia.
Although there were a large number of amendments, the overwhelming majority were technical. When they were not, they fulfilled pledges which had been given in the House or in the other place.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) takes a very great interest in matters of privilege. I am sure that the Committee, which seems to have been a fix-up between the usual channels, would benefit from his advice, because he takes a deep interest in such matters. If you would like me to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be quite happy to provide a manuscript amendment to whatever resolutions are passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Perhaps I can have the last word on this matter. It is always a great privilege to preside over the House, but it is especially so when the House is in such a constructive and happy mood.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

BROADCASTING

Ordered,
That—
(1) the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House (to be called henceforth the Select Committee on Broadcasting etc.) shall have power to give directions and perform other duties, relating to the broadcasting of proceedings of the House and matters ancillary thereto, in accordance with the Resolutions of the House of 26th July 1977 and 19th July 1990;
(2) unless the House otherwise orders, those Members presently nominated to the Committee shall continue to be members of it for the remainder of the present Parliament;
(3) save as superseded by the provisions of the preceding paragraphs of this Order, the temporary Standing Order made on 29th March 1988 relating to the Committee shall continue to apply thereto;
(4) the Committee shall have leave to confer and to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on Broadcasting for the purposes of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and
(5) this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—[Mr. Wood.]

SOUND BROADCASTING

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 129 (Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting) be repealed.—[Mr. Wood.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 5 ) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

That the draft European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

HOVERCRAFT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Roads (Kirklees)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Graham Riddick: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise matters concerning roads in Kirklees, which are of great importance to my constituents. I am also most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping for being with us at this late hour—although it is not quite as late as he and I feared earlier in the evening.
The issues that I shall be raising in the debate are not great matters of state, but bread-and-butter matters affecting the ordinary day-to-day living of just about everybody in my constituency, and within Kirklees, who drives a motor vehicle.
Visitors coming to Kirklees and residents returning are made only too well aware of when they have entered our district. It is not just the reassuring signs which tell them that they have entered a nuclear-free zone, but rather the state of the roads which become markedly worse.
I have received a regular flow of complaints from constituents about the state of the roads in Kirklees. I can confirm from my own experience of driving round the constituency that they leave an awful lot to be desired. It is fair to say that the state of the roads in Kirklees is an absolute disgrace.
All too often when complaints are made about the state of local services, the parrot cry is, "We need more money." My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go down that road this evening.
Kirklees council budgeted for spending more than £10 million on road maintenance last year, although it is my understanding that about £800,000 of that budget has not been spent. That seems a little surprising. Lack of resources is not the root cause of the problems that I have outlined. According to information provided to me by the highways department of Kirklees council, the utility companies create on average about 29,000 holes or openings in the roads in Kirklees every year. The problem lies in the interaction between Kirklees council and the utility companies.
When I first voiced concern in the local press about all the potholes, local Labour councillors, including the leader of the council, tried to put all the blame on the utility companies, and suggested that there was lack of funding to carry out proper repairs. Both claims fall short of the mark. Local authorities have the power now to carry out the permanent reinstatement of the initial temporary reinstatements carried out by the utility companies when they first fill in the hole that they have dug.
Councils have a choice. Either they can require the utility companies to carry out the permanent reinstatement work, or they can do the work themselves. Kirklees council—like, I believe, many other councils—has elected to carry out the permanent reinstatement work itself. The council therefore has the power to ensure that potholes are properly and efficiently repaired. It also has the power to charge the costs of the work direct to the utility companies. That ensures that local community charge payers do not have to bear the cost.
Regrettably, it appears that Kirklees council is not carrying out that function properly. Certainly it is the view of the Mirfield road safety committee—Mirfield is in


Kirklees but just outside my constituency—that the council carries out very little reinstatement work. Earlier this year I raised with the highways department the poor quality of two roads in the village of Slaithwaite in my constituency. It told me that the permanent reinstatement work had been carried out. I discovered later that it had not been carried out, which suggests some confusion and perhaps a lack of co-ordination.

Sir Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend is dealing with issues that are of the greatest importance. It is typical of my hon. Friend's devotion to constituency issues that he is doing so. I want him to understand, however, that the problems that he raises are shared by all districts in west Yorkshire. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) and I agree that the great problem of lack of co-ordination over reinstatement must be properly addressed and that local authorities are reneging on their civic duty properly to maintain roads.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Some people in Kirklees imagine that their roads are the worst in the country, but there appear to be problems in other parts of Yorkshire. I am grateful, too, for my hon. Friend's kind comments about my work as a constituency Member of Parliament. I have tried to follow the excellent example that he set in his constituency.
My constituents are fed up with the state of their roads. I believe that the time has come for the Government to grasp this nettle. Utility companies must be made properly responsible and accountable to the local highways department for the work that they carry out. Highways departments must ensure that the state of roads generally is kept at a high level.
The Horne report was published in 1985. Professor Horne and his team were asked to review the working of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 to see whether the law needed to be updated and clarified. As the Minister knows, the Horne committee made a number of recommendations. I take this opportunity to urge my hon. Friend to ensure that legislation is brought before the House in the next Session of Parliament to implement the recommendations of the Horne report. The Horne report recommended that the responsibility for reinstating roads should be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the utility companies. Experience in Kirklees proves—fairly conclusively, I think—that the current system is not working. Therefore, I support such a move.
Clearly, however, we should have to ensure that a cast-iron system was established that did not allow the utility companies to evade their responsibilities. Strict national standards would have to be put in place to cover the quality of the work, specifications and workmanship and the time scale within which the reinstatement work must be carried out.
There are two other vital factors. There is nothing more frustrating than to see a new surface put down only to have a utility company come along a few months or even a few weeks later and dig it up again. I believe that an effective—probably computerised—system of notification by the utility companies about future excavations is essential. The highways authorities should be given the rights of inspection over all the work carried out by the utility companies.
It is vital to have a proper system of monitoring and of penalties for failure to carry out proper reinstatement. On

the apportioning of costs, I see no reason why community charge payers should have to bear the burden of the excavations carried out by the utility companies. After all, the excavations are done to help the customers of the utility companies. Therefore, it is right that the customers should bear the cost of such work.
I recently met some people who work for British Gas, one of the utility companies that often digs up our roads. They made it clear to me that British Gas and the other utility companies are keen that all recommendations are implemented into law so that a proper system can be introduced. They believe that the utility companies are the most appropriate bodies to carry out that work.
I reiterate my strong hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will win his and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's battle to obtain legislative time for a transport Bill next Session. An editorial in my local newspaper, theHuddersfield Daily Examiner, suggested recently that I will need all the luck I can get if anything is to be done about the roads in Kirklees. It is not luck I need but legislation.
The appalling potholes that I mentioned present a serious danger to drivers, particularly drivers of motor cycles. I understand that during 1989 60 accidents, some more serious than others, were caused by vehicles going into potholes. It is difficult for drivers to obtain proper compensation for personal injuries suffered or for damage to vehicles. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister will look at that part of the law to see whether it needs to be tightened up.
Finally, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the problem of unadopted roads? Within Kirklees there are hundreds of unadopted roads. That means that local residents have to maintain them and some of them are in an appalling state. In many cases, the local residents cannot afford to carry out proper repairs. I recently visited Coldwell street in Linthwaite which has had particular problems that have been exacerbated by large lorries delivering to a supermarket. Whether a small local road is adopted or unadopted is simply an accident of history. However, residents who find themselves in that position still have to pay the same community charge as everybody else in the area and many of them consider that to be unfair. Currently, Kirklees council will adopt a road only if it is up to a certain standard. I suggest that a system should be put in place to ensure that councils adopt a certain number of roads each year. Obviously, the number would depend on local circumstances.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for staying up till this late hour to answer the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) for being here with us. He is an assiduous attender in the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give me some positive answers to some of the issues that I have raised. Many of my constituents are fed up with the state of the roads in Kirklees, and my hon. Friend the Minister is the best hope that I have for getting something done about it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Perhaps I should make it clear that it is not in order for hon. Members to ask for legislation during an Adjournment debate. I am satisfied, however, that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) was asking the Government to act, which is perfectly in order.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on drawing attention to the problem affecting his constituents. I know what a problem it is for him; he has told my colleagues and me many times about it, and I hope that—while remaining mindful of the caution that you have just given us, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I can go some way towards explaining what can be done.
Kirklees is a metropolitan district in the west Yorkshire conurbation. Two of the region's most important motorways—the M1 and M62—pass close to its boundaries, giving Kirklees excellent road links to the south, eastwards to the Humber ports and the Al and westwards over the Pennines to Manchester and Merseyside. Improvement of the M62 has already begun, and climbing lanes have already been provided on some of the more difficult gradients. The length within Kirklees was completed in 1988 at a cost of £3 million.
The White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", published last year, announced proposals to widen the 17 miles of the M62 over the Pennines between junctions 18 and 24 from dual three-lane to dual four-lane at a cost of £125 million, and proposals to create a new 12-mile dual-carriageway trunk road across Kirklees district, linking the M1 to the M62 at a cost of £54 million. By trunking the M606 local authority motorway from the M62 into Bradford in 1989, we were able to relieve Kirklees council of the financial responsibility for the one mile of the M606 within the district.
The Government have also been supporting the improvement of local authority roads in the district. As part of our "action for cities" initiative, Kirklees has two inner-city target areas. I am pleased to see that Kirklees council and private developers in the area have been making good use of the grants that the Department of Transport offers under section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. Those 30 per cent. grants are available in assisted areas such as the northern end of the district, adjacent to the M62 junctions 26 and 27, which lie within the Bradford travel-to-work area. In recent years, IDA grants in Kirklees have supported roadwork schemes costing £1·5 million, helping industrial development and enabling the creation of 2,350 new jobs.
The main source of Government support for the improvement of local authority roads is the transport supplementary grant. It is designed to recognise that many local authority roads are also roads of more than local importance, complementing the national road network. TSG is a 50 per cent. grant towards programmes of expenditure on accepted schemes. The other 50 per cent. is supported through the credit-approval system, which attracts extra revenue support grant, enabling local authorities to build accepted schemes at virtually no cost to their community charge payers. TSG settlements are announced annually, and local authority schemes must compete for priority for the funds available.
In the case of Kirklees, only two major schemes have been put forward for TSG support in transport policy and programme bids since Kirklees council became a highway authority in 1986, when the metropolitan county councils were abolished. The Dewsbury ring road, already under construction in 1986, cost just over £7 million. It was supported by TSG, and was completed in 1987. Mold

Green relief road was proposed by Kirklees council. It was accepted for TSG and completed in 1989 at a cost of £3·1 million.
Kirklees' transport policy and programme for 1991–92 includes a bid for TSG support for a large reconstruction scheme costing £1·25 million in Ravensthorpe, Dewsbury. A decision on whether the scheme will be accepted for TSG will be announced towards the end of 1990.
I should make it clear that Government support for improvement schemes on local roads depends on local authorities' coming forward with schemes in the TPPs, commanding priority for TSG. Until Kirklees comes forward with a bigger programme of schemes, it cannot expect to increase its portion of support through TSG.
Expenditure on routine highway maintenance is not eligible for TSG, but is covered in the standard spending assessment calculations for RSG, where we prefer to give the local authorities a reasonably free hand to sort out their own priorities.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the particular problems of unadopted roads. I understand that he recently received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic explaining the position on that issue, and there is nothing that I can usefully add at this stage.
As my hon. Friend clearly illustrated tonight, the work of the public utilities has a major effect on the condition of roads. Electricity, gas, water and telecommunications companies enjoy statutory rights to break open streets to lay and maintain their apparatus. In built-up urban areas such as Kirklees, where demand for utility services is greatest and road traffic is heaviest, conflicts of interest frequently arise.
I agree with my hon. Friend that a complete overhaul of the legislation governing utility street works is required if there is to be a real and lasting improvement. While I cannot anticipate what will appear in the forthcoming Queen's Speech, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to bringing forward legislation to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950—known as PUSWA—at the earliest opportunity. I hope that theHuddersfield Examiner will, rightly, give credit and praise when that Bill comes forward.
There are a number of serious shortcomings in the present law on utility works. One example is the requirement to serve notices in writing on all the authorities involved before starting works. That results in unnecessary bureaucracy, with some 4 million holes each year subject to the requirements of the 1950 Act.
The paper-based system fails to distinguish the important advance notifications from the routine. There are 18 different forms of statutory notice for use by the utilities, and a further 21 for use by other authorities. The highway authority has little opportunity to make adequate arrangements for traffic management, still less to co-ordinate works between various utilities. The possibilities for simplification and efficiency gains offered by information technology are ruled out by the statutory requirements for paper notices.
Another example of the shortcomings of the present framework is the generally unsatisfactory state of reinstatement of roads following excavation work by utilities. The 1950 Act allows highway authorities to elect to do the permanent reinstatement of the upper levels of the roads themselves at the utility's expense. There is no time limit laid down for the highway authority to carry out the reinstatement in those cases. As a result, temporary


reinstatements done by utilities are often left for far too long in a totally unsatisfactory condition, and in those cases where the utility is allowed to do the permanent reinstatement itself there is a wide variety of permitted standards and a weak system of enforcement. All that means too many reinstatements are left in a poor condition, and highway authorities have to spend more on maintenance in the long run.
Recognising problems such as those, in 1984 my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), the then Minister of State, Department of Transport, invited Professor Horne to chair a committee to review all aspects of the 1950 Act. Its report, "Roads and the utilities", published in November 1985, provided a comprehensive review and a series of recommendations for action that commanded a wide degree of support.
The Government published their formal response to the report in 1986, accepting the main recommendations. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that we take such issues seriously. Those recommendations were, first, that the primary responsibility for carrying out reinstatements following street works by utilities should be placed on the utilities themselves. Local authorities and their direct labour organisations would be allowed to tender for such work if they wished, but would no longer have the statutory right to elect to do the permanent reinstatement themselves. In future, the responsibility and liability for reinstatements will clearly rest with the utilities. That should go a long way towards meeting the concerns about liability in the case of accidents that my hon. Friend mentioned. Members of the public trying to find out who is responsible for a particular pothole will no longer have to suffer being passed back and forth between utility and highway authority
The second main recommendation was that there should he new performance standards for reinstatements with better specifications for materials and workmanship, backed up by a system of training and certification of workmen and their supervisors. There should also be improvements in the procedures for the service of notices, inspections, traffic management, and safeguarding road users.
In accepting those main recommendations of the Horne report, the Government recognised that primary legislation would be required to implement them. At the same time, they urged local authorities and the utilities to embark on the detailed technical work required to prepare the ground. The street works advisory committee was established to give the Secretary of State for Transport direct access to the best advice available. That committee has been invaluable in the formulation of detailed proposals for legislation, which were included in a consultation paper issued by the Department of Transport last year.
Over the past three years, a considerable effort has been made by representatives of local authorities and utilities in association with Department of Transport officials to draw up the various codes of practice which will underpin the proposed new arrangements. Those involved have produced draft codes of practice on matters such as the specification for reinstatements, notice and inspection procedures, requirements for training and certification of workmen and the arrangements for diverting utility apparatus during road schemes.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the new specification for reinstatements that is being drawn up will

require utilities to guarantee the performance of the repair for a fixed period. A demanding standard will be set to prevent uneven and dangerous road surfaces. The prescribed standard will have to be met whether the reinstatement is temporary or permanent. The needs of more vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, will be taken into account when the standards are set. Each utility's performance will be closely monitored through a system of highway authority inspections, and there will be penalties for failure to meet the required level.
All that important preparatory work should ensure that the implementation of the new arrangements can be done more effectively and quickly once a new legislative framework is in place.
There is a need to reduce traffic obstruction and delay caused by utility street works. The Horne report argued the case for improved co-ordination of road works and better traffic management during the execution of works. I take my hon. Friend's point that there is nothing worse than a new road being laid and someone digging it up the next day. The Government fully accept the importance of this aspect and have indeed gone further than Horne in their proposals to protect the interests of road users, whether they be on wheels or on foot. It is proposed that the highway authority will be placed under a duty to co-ordinate all excavations in the highway, including its own, with a view to minimising the disruption to road users. There will be a new management tool to aid co-ordination in the form of a computerised street works register. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Department of Transport is making available funding for the design and development of the register.
In future, the highway authority will be empowered to designate as "traffic sensitive" those streets where works could cause great disruption to road users. On such streets, utilities will be required to consult the highway authority in advance before starting works. Where the highway authority is satisfied that works may cause serious disruption to traffic, it will have power to direct the utility on the times of working. However, of course, special arrangements will be made for genuine emergency works.
Utility street works and building works undoubtedly impose costly delays on trafffic. Although much of this disruption is unavoidable, and as customers of the utilities we often benefit from the work which causes it, unnecessarily long or frequent disruption to road users can and must be avoided. For that reason, we came forward with a further proposal last autumn to take a power which would enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to require highway authorities to charge the promoters of works and their contractors to minimise disruption and delay in the most traffic-sensitive areas.
We shall continue to encourage the use of so-called trenchless methods of construction and maintenance. Various techniques are now available to bore under roads with far less disruption to traffic and damage to the road surface than conventional trenching methods. As the technology becomes more reliable and cost-effective, we may expect to see it increasingly preferred by the utilities.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. He was joined in his comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) was present throughout the debate. I realise what an important subject this is to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. He is certainly


never backward in coming forward and making strong representations to the Government about what most affects his constituents. I hope that I have been able to outline the Government's thinking and what action is necessary.
I hope that we can act soon and that some of theproblems to which my hon. Friend referred, which have caused much annoyance to his constituents and to those of other hon. Members, can be put right and that we can achieve a better system of maintaining and fixing our roads when they are dug up by the utilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.